022 Bro. Genusa’s Web Site Posting

{the following letter, being my final response to Berean claims, is a web-only posting. Updated Sept 11th, 2006}

Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006

From: Stephen Genusa

To: Jim Phillips

Subject: RE: 12 Questions, Answered

Dear brother Phillips,

Your latest response comes to 13 pages with little new in the way of argument or material. Your burden was to respond to the arguments I've laid out before you. Instead, you have returned to the same quotes you've been quoting: quotes I do not and have not disputed. In other cases you quote things, then you force your view of fellowship on me and then claim I am in violation of the quote (which you interpreted on your premise of worldwide fellowship without exception -- a premise I have repeatedly rejected)! That is neither productive argumentation or justice.

My Foundation Point and A Few Proofs

I have staked out a palpable position stated thus: If your worldwide fellowship without exception theory is false, then your entire justification for separation from those Christadelphian brethren you are otherwise in agreement with falls to the ground. I think that's clear enough. Now, you claim I have provided no quotes which prove your theory wrong. Let me then re-quote a few of them and we shall see:

The first is from brother Thomas. This is from 1870, just a few years before brother Thomas' death and being 19 years after 1851.

"It is not my province to issue bulls of excommunication[1], but simply to shew what the truth teaches and commands. I have to do with principles, not men. If anyone say that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh common to us all, the apostle John saith that that spirit or teacher is not of God; is the deceiver and the anti-Christ, and abides not in the doctrine of Christ; and is therefore not to be received into the house, neither to be bidden God-speed.—(1 John 4:3, 2; 2 Ep. 7, 9, 10.) I have nothing to add to or take from this. It is the sanctifying truth of the things concerning the 'name of Jesus Christ.' All whom the apostles fellowshipped, believed it; and all in the apostolic ecclesias who believed it not—and there were such—had not fellowship with the apostles, but opposed their teachings; and when they found they could not have their own way, John says 'They went out from us, but they—the anti-Christ—were not of us; for if they had been of us (of our fellowship), they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.'—(1 John 2:19.) The apostles did not cast them out, but they went out of their own accord, not being able to endure sound doctrine.—(2 Tim. 4:3.)

"Then preach the word, &c., and exhort with all long-suffering and teaching. This is the purifying agency. Ignore brother this and brother that in said teaching; for personalities do not help the argument. Declare what you as a body believe to be the apostles’ doctrines. Invite fellowship upon that basis alone. If upon that declaration, any take the bread and wine, not being offered by you, they do so upon their own responsibility, not on yours. If they help themselves to the elements, they endorse your declaration of doctrine, and eat condemnation to themselves. For myself, I am not in fellowship with the dogma that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh, or that he died as a substitute to appease the fury and wrath of God. The love of God is manifest in all that He has done for man. 'When all wish to do what is right,' the right surely is within their grasp. I trust you will be able to see it from what is now before you. And may the truth preside over all your deliberations, for Christ Jesus is the truth, and dwells with those with whom the truth is. Where this is I desire to be." (John Thomas, The Christadelphian, 1870, p. 16)

[1] or read, "interecclesial unity of action"

Now, notice that there were some "in the apostolic ecclesias" (who therefore must have "broken bread") but who did not believe the apostle's doctrine but they were NOT in fellowship with the apostles.

Notice that he says the principle is to declare the truth and break bread on that basis. He says nothing like

"Look brethren, even if they break bread on that basis you will be fellowshipping errorists so, here's what you've got to do. Separate yourselves into a new community. Make a Constitution so as to erect walls to keep thy community and fellowship pure. Issue a restatement which puts out of fellowship some errors which are current and then demand all brethren agree, before they break bread, to your rules and demand they agree not to make new rules beyond those you have imposed on them. If any bring some other doctrine receive him not into your ecclesia. Above all brethren, keep thy fellowship pure." Now, does that sound extreme or not? Well...does it?

Thus his 1870 quote is consistent with his 1851 quotes which show that:

John Thomas did not treat breaking bread as necessarily synonymous with fellowship. The Bereans "without exception" do.

John Thomas did not treat ecclesial membership as necessarily synonymous with fellowship. The Bereans "without exception" do.

John Thomas did not treat fraternal membership as necessarily synonymous with fellowship. The Bereans "without exception" do.

An 1870 position cannot be called an immature conclusion but it was the position he held in his last years. The Bereans do not hold that same position.

Here's another quote:

Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, 1858, p. 125

Notice there were two classes in the ecclesia of John's day. Spiritual Jews and liars. "The first class were in scriptural fellowship with the apostle..." The Berean argument is that the second class, the liars, were in fellowship with the first, the spiritual Jews, and that therefore the saints were really disobedients, apostates on the doctrine of fellowship &c. But this is a lie which dies at the hands of brother Thomas' own words:

"All whom the apostles fellowshipped, believed it; and all in the apostolic ecclesias who believed it not—and there were such—had not fellowship with the apostles, but opposed their teachings" (John Thomas, 1870)

There was no less potential for error in the AD 70 ecclesia as there is in a modern ecclesia. Arguments of errorists change over time but they are always designed to challenge the same points of doctrine (the resurrection; Jesus coming in the flesh; wholly inspired Bible &c.). The Bereans believe, as indicated by their position on fellowship, that they are justified in going beyond the tests of fellowship as found in the apostles' fellowship. This should throw up a red flag for anyone who claims to reverence the instruction, judgments, sanctions and limits found in the inspired Word.

Those are just a few quotes, which if only one were true (and they must be when viewed in light of Scripture), would demolish your entire Fellowship foundation. Pack your Berean bags my brother and come join in the support and defense of real Biblical Truth!

Misrepresentations

On another point, as you have consistently done, you have again misrepresented my arguments. Your recasting of arguments into paper tigers of your own pleasure is a provocative act. I do not take it as being indicative of a strong position but of the truth that the emperor has no clothes. Take, for example, this:

> 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.

NO where in my writings have I said anything approximating that. How then can you make such a false and provocative claim?

My argument has been, and what I have shown is, that you have misinterpreted and selectively quoted from both brethren JT and RR. I have also shown that in at least one case a quotation was altered in a way that removed the contradiction between brother Roberts practices and the Berean practices. Therefore the foundation argument, if you like, is that

it is impossible to reconcile my post-1851 quotes from JT and RR with Berean practices.

There is my foundation point and no matter the confusion you personally may experience, or the sand you may cast up, the foundation will still be there, as a rock, waiting for you when the sand clears.

The Doctrine of Fellowship

You repeatedly assert things which I have shown to be untrue leaving me to conclude you are a careless reader.

You wrote,

> 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.

I have dealt with the writings in at least two different ways. 1) I have told you that anything in your selective quotations which you interpret to mean worldwide fellowship can be interpreted in another way, namely autonomous ecclesias that do not tolerate errorists and therefore do not fellowship them. And 2) I have quoted from JT and RR at early and latter periods of their lives which show that your interpretation is not consistent with their own writings. Their writings plainly demonstrate they did not believe the worldwide fellowship without exception error. The quotations I have supplied demonstrate that you are misrepresenting these two brethren. And that is proved in the fact that you, nor (if words mean anything) an oracle, can reconcile the quotes I've provided with the selective quotations found in your book using your worldwide fellowship without exception interpretatation. What is apparent is that you feel no responsibility to explain why you left out the quotes I have cited. They contradict your claims and, though I provided them to you nearly a month ago, you are as silent as a mouse about them.

Some Christadelphians read and selectively quote the pioneer works, interpreting them through the eyes of J.J. Andrew to suit their own concept of what truth is. Others read and selectively quote the pioneer works through the eyes of John Bell, AD Strickler or Harry Fry distorting the pioneer works to suit their clean-flesh, human salvation / humanistic theories. Bereans read and selectively quote the pioneer works, to justify their position on fellowship.

Autonomy vs. Control = Pioneer vs. Berean

You wrote,

> 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?

I am glad you asked why your alteration effects the article: It alters the article because brother Roberts was no dictator. His principle, the prominent principle of his own behavior and that which he helped establish for Christadelphian ecclesias was autonomy rather than a unified control over the Christadelphian ecclesias. The autonomy they practiced is consistent with what we see in the Bible. The Berean principle, and it is plainly shown in the article by GVG, is control at the expense of autonomy. Having the non-pioneer, but Berean 5 document basis of fellowship before his readers, he writes,

"It is true there are other matters that can affect fellowship. This body of material is not, and could not be, absolutely exhaustive, and include every point, negative and positive, that could affect fellowship. It would be unreal to say, "As long as you accept and believe and defend in your fellowship stand everything contained herein, then you can believe and teach anything else with impunity, and it cannot be made a matter of fellowship."

...

"Any additional fellowship requirements or restrictions added unilaterally by individual ecclesias are to be discouraged and avoided. This way so easily lays the potentiality of anarchy and schism. What local decisions an ecclesia makes (in the interests of preserving its local harmony and soundness) are far better kept entirely separate from, and secondary to, this basic body of fellowship-defining material we ALL have, and subscribe to, in common.

"The ideal is that all ecclesias have exactly the same Constitution, as far as concerns matters of fellowship. There seems to be no reason for sacrificing this ideal for the sake of numbers. To so do would in time mean a multitude of varying bases, instead of our present common and uniform one.

"There is such a thing as ecclesial autonomy, and such a thing as interecclesial unity of action. It is not always easy to say exactly where one should end and the other begin. As far as the matter of Fellowship is concerned, the more we are completely at one in our written Constitutions, the better. And variation between Constitutions as concerns anything to do with fellowship is a danger--at least potentially--of weakness and disunity."

All I ask is for the honest reader to compare the ideas expressed here with the behavior of the early Christadelphians.

Brother Phillips, there is a principle that nothing in life is free of consequences. Take the principle of liberty for example. The principle of liberty has benefits and liabilities. Freewill is the very principle which God operates upon to allow men to choose good or evil. It allows for liberty of action. But press liberty too far and it may become licentiousness.

But asserting control also comes at a cost. Apply control and liberty must recede. Press the principle of control too far and it becomes dictatorial and the liberty of freewill is suppresed or denied. There is a Scriptural balance between control and liberty of action and conscience. I "personally" believe the balance brethren John Thomas and Robert Roberts had was the right balance.

Bereans denied the Pioneers had the right balance

when they added new tests of fellowship and ecclesial requirements

for admission and membership

into what they claim is the true body of Christ.

With this control Bereans can justly claim to have more unity, though the unity is a tenuous unity. It is a tenuous unity because the more you control, that is the more you demand, the more divisions you will eventually have, to wit: Berean history.

Bereans have opted for control rather than ecclesial autonomy

at the cost of cutting off and treating as unclean some of Christ's true brethren.

This was not the Christ practice; Not the Paul practice; And not the pioneer practice.

It is a post-pioneer development that came from Churchy views of what fellowship is.

If the Berean choice was not harmful to the body of Christ I would have no reason for complaint. But in fact you are harming yourselves and Christ's brethren by the imbalanced position you occupy.

Bereans have not maintained the pioneer position on fellowship but it has not prevented them from claiming to be the remaining voice in the wilderness who are the only ones left who uphold the pioneer position! But the reality is Bereans have apostatized from the pioneer Christadelphian position on fellowship and Berean policies are more consistent with the apostasy than of the pioneers:

By demanding all ecclesias have a Common Constitution which is a matter of fellowship (refrain"So do the Churches")

By making an added document, the Berean Restatement, and all matters contained therein a matter of fellowship. In doing so the Bereans have placed more new tests of fellowship which go beyond anything mentioned in the Bible or that of the pioneers.

By preventing or discouraging ecclesias from adding or removing items from the Constitution. That is by claiming control over the ecclesia's constitution.

By pressing "interecclesial unity of action" which is a nice term to use where ecclesial autonomy is denied and excommunication is practiced.

The Berean position on both 'fellowship' and 'control' are principles which have been pressed too far to the detriment of God's chosen methods. Bereans press control too far at the expense of autonomy to the violation of the Scriptural doctrines and examples.

And fellowship, a right principle in itself, is pressed too far whereby the One True Fellowship is imposed on an earthly superstructure, the mortal ecclesia, erected to develop out of it a people for God's name. Bereans (and other schismatic fellowships) have confused a temporary superstructure for the ultimate goal and behave as if the ultimate goal were a present reality.

Brother Phillips' Strawman Arguments

Now, brother Phillips you cite the 24 point article on fellowship and then wrote,

> 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?

The article would not mention the difference between fellowship and Fellowship because schismatics had not yet started disassembling the Christadelphian community at the time the article was written. The Churchy sectarian view of fellowship had not split the community, what, as yet some 50 or so times.

This would be like brother Phillips asking me to prove where in the Scriptures brethren had a "fellowship card" (which is a figure by which I mean to say that a Christadelphian, of necessity, is identified with a certain Fellowship institution. (Bearer of card is bonafide member of ___________; Choose one: Central, Berean, Unamended, Old Paths, Dawn, Wayfarers, Ecclesia of Christ, Apostolic Fellowship of Christ, The Remnant, Trapp Fellowship, Maranathan &c. &c. &c.) I cannot prove the existence of such Fellowships except I be allowed to go outside of the Scriptures and past the days of the pioneers. Does this fact give anyone pause to consider?

Under your heading "Fellowship was considered a world wide responsibility" you quote brother Roberts:

"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 recognize in fellowship."

The only problem is that my argument is NOT that I "so recognize in fellowship" &c. That is your false position which you again mistakenly impose on me. I do not claim that all in the Christadelphian community are in fellowship with me, or with God or His Christ. Nor did JT and RR. Nor did the apostle Paul. Surely you can see the obvious point!

You wrote concerning brother Thomas' early position on fellowship:

> 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.

I stated why I quoted from his 1851 position here: http://www.genusa.com/Truth/TheDoctrineOfFellowship.html#Sep6Note

I quoted from his 1870 position and you are silent as a mouse on it.

You wrote,

> 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.

and

> The situation must be taken into account. There were no ecclesias in existence.

Again, I do not have to rely on an 1851 position I have already admitted is not one I would wholly endorse. Your verbosity on the issue is without a cause. I believe you will admit an ecclesia existed in 1854? If not, what about 1858? No? Then how about 1870? Choose a date. Any date. I'll accept any date however far out you want to push it and then I'll hold you to applying the principles elaborated by JT and RR through the end of their lives.

There is a pattern here that I must notice. Brother Phillips, you are are turning to various pioneer quotes and asking, how I can reconcile these quotes with my fellowship position. My answer is: autonomous ecclesias that do not tolerate errorists and therefore do not fellowship them. The quotes are not contradictory and schizophrenic unless you interpret them with a worldwide fellowship without exception doctrine.

Berean Fellowship Mechanics Are Not My Position

You wrote,

> Your ideas of Christ placed in fellowship with Belial by us

> fellowshiping error is condemned in the Christadelphian for 1892!

> Curiously, another man who took up the pen to condemn your construction was bro. J. J. Andrew.

Once again you are confused. I have said that it is your position, as shown by your practices, and therefore your ideas and your mechanics which I take exception to. You turn around and accuse me of mechanical thinking as if my fellowship practices led to mechanical thinking! If you don't want an accusation of believing Christ and Belial can be joined then don't practice fellowship like you believe they can. If you don't like the accusation of believing that Christ and Belial can be joined then stop accusing Central brethren of fellowshipping error. It is your principle! Is it honest to accuse others of a principle and then refuse to apply it to yourself? Or do you hanker for principles only when they suit your position? If you do not like J. J. Andrew's taste for mechanics then do not adopt positions which portray fellowship as a mechanical operation. I do not believe fellowship works in the mechanical way you practice. You have repeatedly tried to use JJA against me which is another provocative act but then it turns upon your own position, not mine. Curious indeed.

I again point out that brother John Thomas, apparently unknown to brother Phillips, makes the exact same argument I did, applying it to marriage with the unbeliever.

Brother Phillips claims that all Central brethren fellowship errorists. If this is true, then according to his own argument, brethren cannot be in fellowship with God and His Son while at the same time being in fellowship with error, sin and corruption. Therefore, while he says they leave things to Christ's judgment, the consequence of his judgment must, logically, be that Central brethren are without God and without Hope being alienated from God through the unbelief and wickedness of others (such is human judgment and 'justice').

Summary Proofs

Now, by way of summary, I will demonstrate in short that your position is not the Scriptural position or the pioneer position and then I have other matters to attend to:

1: Berean Claim) Bereans claim that their basis of fellowship is the PIONEER BASIS OF FELLOWSHIP

"Our Basis of Fellowship is comprised of three documents, the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith, the Commandments of Christ, and the Doctrines to be Rejected. " (quote taken from https://www.angelfire.com/bc2/Bereans/Sof/toc.html Sept 10,2006)

 

A Berean Booklet claiming to uphold the pioneer position on fellowship

 

Berean Ecclesial Magazine claims...

1:Reality) Bereans have FIVE FELLOWSHIP documents, NOT THREE, as a basis of fellowship which include a variety of items not made a matter of fellowship by the pioneers

"This is our basis of fellowship, and our position on current problems. The first part is made up of the standard Christadelphian "Constitution" booklet. This booklet, standard among us as our common basis of unity and identity for 100 years, and doctrinally unchanged from the days of bro. Roberts, consists of four parts: (1) Statement of Faith; (2) Doctrines to Be Rejected; (3) Commandments of Christ; and (4) our Ecclesial Constitution. The second part [SG: second part but document # 5] is the "Berean Restatement" concerning current problems, adopted in 1960."

 

Front Cover, The Berean, January 1980

"But the 'Constitution' part itself contains both fellowship and non-fellowship matters. We have therefore herein distinguished between them by printing the vital fellowship parts in boldface, with non-fellowship parts light. The Ecclesial Guide has been printed without attempting to boldface items of first principle."

"Any additional fellowship requirements or restrictions added unilaterally by individual ecclesias are to be discouraged and avoided. This way so easily lays the potentiality of anarchy and schism. What local decisions an ecclesia makes (in the interests of preserving its local harmony and soundness) are far better kept entirely separate from, and secondary to, this basic body of fellowship-defining material we ALL have, and subscribe to, in common.

"The ideal is that all ecclesias have exactly the same Constitution, as far as concerns matters of fellowship. There seems to be no reason for sacrificing this ideal for the sake of numbers. To so do would in time mean a multitude of varying bases, instead of our present common and uniform one."

There is nothing resembling the above anywhere in the pioneer writings. They were careful not to impose a Common Constitution or single basis of fellowship on Christadelphian ecclesias. My point is proved.

2: Berean Claim) Scriptural fellowship is a worldwide without exception fellowship

"We do believe that all Berean Christadelphians are in fellowship with each other, without exception." (JP)

"We do believe we are in fellowship with all in our community who share the emblems. " (JP)

"Fellowship is the total oneness of the whole Body" (GVG)

2: Scripture Reality) Scriptural fellowship is only for those who believe the truth and walk in the light. On that basis we have fellowship with the Father and the Son and with others who do the same.

Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

1 John 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

2: Pioneer Reality) The Pioneer position was consistent with the Scriptures, and not the selective quotations of the Bereans

"7th.—Would you have any fellowship with those who believe or teach these things? Answer: 'My fellowship is with the apostles; they had many brethren who were bewitched and disgraced the truth.'" (JT)

http://www.genusa.com/Truth/TheDoctrineOfFellowship.html ; See the section "Quotes not Included" found here:

http://www.genusa.com/Truth/TheDoctrineOfFellowship.html#QuotesNotIncluded

My point is proved.

Genuinely wishing you well,

stephen