The Fellowship Debate Material
Bro. Steven Genusa challenged the Bereans to debate the subject of fellowship in a digital format on the net. To this we agreed, always willing to answer any serious questions sent our way. But he wanted this done in a brief time period, which was impossible, (at least for me) to comply with. My work schedule couldn't accommodate his desire. I was willing to make consecutive Saturdays available to him, to answer any questions he wished. This, for whatever reason, was not acceptable to bro. Genusa, so he has published the questions he had already prepared on his web site.
In the following, I will answer his questions as best I can. I will give him time to change his questions based upon my answers, or to add to them. Then I will move on, section by section. Bro. Genusa has elected to engage me in this exercise. I note to everyone that he is choosing to edit my answers on his web site. I recommend that you therefore follow the debate here, till such time that bro. Genusa wishes to accurately exhibit my answers. All the print in blue is mine. All the print in black is bro. Genusa's.--Jim Phillips
"The Measure and Standard of Fellowship"
This line of questioning is designed to establish, for the record, what the Christadelphian "measure and standard of fellowship" is. It is quite clear from all Christadelphian writings that, doctrinally speaking, the "First Principles" are the "measure and standard of fellowship". Bereans do not deny this. So let's have them assent, for the record, to what everyone knows is true. This, along with a few other details associated with this principle, are established so that later we can test whether or not Berean practices really conform to what they must admit.
Update September 29th 2007: Bro. JP of the Bereans is answering my questions -- rather, I should say, he has started to answer them. The first series of questions are easy questions, as I stated above "what everyone knows to be true". We will see how far he wishes to proceed. Unfortunately, bro. Jim, for some reason, never emailed me to tell me what he was doing and that he was giving me an opportunity and deadline to respond, though he, or some other Berean, spread notice of Jim's first answers to the four winds of the Berean community via an email. Some of bro. JP's answers are long and unnecessary (as will be seen by referring to his original) so rather than paste the full answer, readers who think I may have left out some critical argument he makes may read his full answer here.
Ans: Bro. Steve you forget that you strictly forbid me to ever contact him again. You will recognize that I have obeyed your command, even asking permission before responding on a message board to some of your writings. I was sure that you would find out, and I don't think it took three days. I also didn't know if you wanted to participate in this longer version of a discussion, since you had declined this before, preferring the format of a debate. I will answer all the questions you present here, and ones you add as we go through this exercise. I'm sorry you find them too long, but it is necessary, at times, to be clear because you are arguing that we believe things we simply do not believe.
Update October 9th 2007: JP is apparently unwilling to provide his readers with a direct link to this site...
Jim P of the Bereans has revised his answers page. Readers may refer to his full answers as linked to above if they wish. Beginning with this round I have decided:
Not to answer some of his historical claims which, even though they are incorrect, are either tangential or irrelevant to the case I am making. I do recommend that interested students research JP's claims as, frankly, even some Bereans disagree with some of what JP claims. For example, JP claimed that the principle of light making responsible had not been made a matter of fellowship prior to 1894. The quote he supplied spoke of the South London ecclesia, not Birmingham -- if JP had checked the context he would have known this. Then he claimed bro. Thomas did not view the principle of light making men responsible to be a matter of fellowship. Bob W, of the Bereans has published material to the contrary here and here. BW wrote, it was "A First Principle of the Doctrine of the Christ" "from the earliest years of the Christadelphian community". JP denies that to be true.Not to answer his personal attacks and mischaracterizations which would only dilute the doctrinal and historical arguments I've made. I have laid out a doctrinal and historical case against Berean claims. Jim prefers to muddy the waters by putting me on personal defense. Jim characterizes me on his web site as an "apologist", a "Nicodemite", a "supporter of errorists", an advocate of "open door" fellowship and other falsehoods/adjectives. Responding to him would not serve the interests of the Truth. Christ will judge me in due time and bro. Jim will have to show a measure of patience in this respect.
Ans: I have links on my website to bro. Genusa site. It is an excellent site. Probably, it is the best site in all Christadelphia, apart from his treatment of fellowship. I would think if folks could find my site, surely they can find bro. Steve's. But in case anyone can't, bro. Steve's entire site can be found at Truth Seeker and the corresponding debate page is found here.
I am surprised that you will elect not to deal with my references to historical matters. You constantly argue that my historical claims are incorrect. Here is your chance to exhibit that. If I have misstated the ecclesial conditions regarding the resurrection of enlightened rejecters, certainly you should be able to quickly exhibit it. I checked with bro. Bob Widdig, who agrees with me, that there is no difference between his position and mine. But Bereans in general, are not going to agree on all points of ecclesial history, anymore than Central would.
I have not altered or revised any answer to any question without clearly stating such. I have changed a dumb mistake I made after you pointed it out, and I have added some numbers to one of your responses because there were so many questions in that response. There are no other changes that I am aware of. If there are other changes, they would have to be the result of my poor html skills. Please point them out, and I will fix anything that has dropped off.
The First Stage of the discussion.
1. Brother Roberts wrote, "Nothing short of fidelity to the whole Truth can be accepted as a safe policy. The 'things concerning the Kingdom of God' and 'those things that concern our Lord Jesus Christ,' in their scriptural amplitude must be the measure and standard of fellowship. Those who go for less than this must be left to themselves. " (Robert Roberts, My Days and My Ways). Would it be a fair assessment to say that in this quote brother Roberts defined ”the whole Truth” as “The ‘things of the Kingdom of God’ and ‘those things that concern our Lord Jesus Christ,’ in their scriptural amplitude”? (emphasis mine).
A. If by "scriptural amplitude" you mean our Statement of Faith with the Doctrines to be Rejected and the Commandments of Christ, enforced in fellowship; then yes. These documents define the "True Principles" which are commonly held among us. I would add from the outset, however, that it is not inconceivable that other matters could rise, as they did in the past, in relation to fellowship. Some things were so obvious to the early Christadelphians that they didn't need to be included in our Statement of Faith. As time went on, some the most obvious things were challenged, and clauses were added as circumstances warranted. Among these have been additions concerning the complete inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, the amendment pertaining to the resurrection of enlightened rejecters, and more recently, the concept of establishing fellowship through majority vote where a disagreeing minority is permitted to exist in fellowship. All these things were established from the beginning, and are not changes but a clarifying of our foundation positions.
2. No, the quote does not mention the BASF/DTBR/CoC enforced in fellowship. The question was, Would it be a fair assessment to say that in this quote brother Roberts defined ”the whole Truth” as “The ‘things of the Kingdom of God’ and ‘those things that concern our Lord Jesus Christ,’ in their scriptural amplitude”? (emphasis mine).
Ans: Bro. Roberts, throughout his lifetime, was very clear as to how he defined "the whole truth" in regards to fellowship. It was defined quite succinctly, and as I have stated it. The longer time went on, and the larger the body grew, the more in harmony all faithful ecclesias became with these principles. Your simple definitions do not suffice for serious discussion. Most everyone will agree to those terms, including the Churches. This is why bro. Roberts wrote in the Ecclesial Guide:
Basis of FellowshipExamination implies a recognised basis of fellowship; that is, a definition of the doctrines that are recognised as the truth. Examination would be objectless if there were no such definition recognised, whether written or understood. It is necessary to have the truth defined. It is not enough for an applicant to say he believes the Bible, or the testimony of the apostles. Multitudes would profess belief in this form who we know are ignorant or unbelieving of the truth, and, therefore, unqualified for union with the brethren of Christ. The question for applicants is, do they believe what the Scriptures teach? To test this, the teaching requires definition. This definition agreed to forms the basis of fellowship among believers, whether expressed in spoken or written words.
The history of creeds, which have supplanted the Scriptures in past ages, naturally leads some to feel an objection to this basis in a written form, but it is obvious that there are advantages in connection with a written form that outweigh the sentimental repugnance inspired by ecclesiastical precedents. A mere understanding as to the definitions of truth to be received is apt to become dim and indefinite, and the way is open to the gradual setting in of corruption. So long as it is understood that the written definition is not an authority, but merely the written expression of our identical convictions, there is not only no disadvantage, but the reverse, in reducing the faith to a form that shuts the door against misunderstanding.Such a basis of faith will be found at the end of this book.--Robert Roberts, Ecclesial Guide, section 34. [My Emphasis. The basis of faith found at the end of his book was the Statement of Faith with the DtbR and CoC--jp]Response: The quote from brother Roberts states a principle, not a full definition of The Faith itself. It is a principle one assumes a Berean could give a straight Yes or No answer to, without interpolations. Debates usually begin by trying to establish simple principles upon which other principles will be built. I must leave readers to decide if the quote from brother Roberts "[does] not suffice for serious discussion". Your interpolation is another evidence that Bereans cannot establish their claims without making assumptions and reading things into Christadelphian history which don't really exist.
Ans: Lets recap here. You asked me a vague and general question, the answer to which any in the so called "Christian church" would answer "yes" to. Your question was: Do the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ define our basis of fellowship. For point of clarity, and because these early questions do define the principles of our discussion, I defined my answer quite clearly, concisely, and in the context of Christadelphian history. Understanding the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ to mean the principles exhibited in the BASF, the DtbR, and the CoC, yes, this defines our basis of fellowship. You won't accept my clarifications, and say that my clear definitions are "interpolations." My understanding of an "interpolation" is unrelated or untrue matter inserted into the middle of a discussion. So then, you are suggesting that the principles exhibited in the BASF, the DtbR, and the CoC are unrelated matter in defining our basis of fellowship, and/or when defining the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ. I simply don't agree with you.
Then you suggest that my desire to keep the parameters of this discussion well defined is proof of my desire to "read things into Christadelphian history." Let's consider what I am reading into our history. That the Christadelphian basis of fellowship from the beginning has been the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ, as exhibited in the principles established in the BASF, DtbR, and CoC. You say that since we do not agree, we will have to let the readers decide. I never, even for a moment, thought this exercise would be for any other reason, but that the readers could decide. But I'm pretty confident that at least our Christadelphian readers will recognize that the principles exhibited in the BASF with the DtbR and the CoC has been, from our beginning, our basis of fellowship.
3: Did brother Roberts recognize other Christadelphian ecclesias' Statement of Faith as a valid basis of fellowship? I do not mean just any SOF, but were there other ecclesias, who had an SOF different from Birmingham, which brother Roberts recognized as being "in fellowship"
Ans: Certainly he did. There is nothing magical about the BASF and accompanying documents. It was and is possible to write the same principles in other formats. It was the confusion generated by those who supported errorists and who feared a forthright declaration of the truth; who made a unifying of these documents desirable to the faithful brethren. The confusion allowed error a foothold. The unifying of our position took that foothold away.
Special note: The following response by bro. Genusa has many questions in it. I took the liberty of adding Roman numbers in parenthesis to his original response to facilitate my answering them, and to make it easier for the reader to see what was being answered.
Response: (i) Jim, why did you blunt your admission with words which mislead? We are not talking about "formats" or "magic". We are talking about other "expressions" -- different words -- expressing the same principles. And we are talking about what the pioneer practices were... nothing to do with "magic" as far as I can see. (ii) Now, JP, this is only question #3 and you have already admitted that your basis and practice of fellowship is different from the position supported, advocated and practiced by brother Robert Roberts. Brother Roberts did not "support errorists", nor did he fear a forthright declaration of the truth, and yet the "confusion" you say existed was, as a matter of historical fact, due to a policy and practice bro. Roberts helped establish! Not only did he help establish, advocate and practice the policy you reject, he resisted the course Bereans took (as demonstrated later in the debate). (iii) Perhaps you will then allow that "faithful ecclesias" and "faithful brethren" do not have to adopt the policies Bereans adopted in 1923, 1960 and 1980? You say those who do not adopt your policies "fellowship errorists" yet you do not make the same charge against bro. Robert Roberts? Is this not the use of "divers weights"? (iv) You say your unifying position took away a 'foothold' of error, a "foothold" which the pioneer position allowed -- a thing you admitted. Then, the question is, were the Berean actions Scriptural. (v) Is it a "foothold" God allows you to take? Not according to pioneer practice which is what Bereans have falsely claimed to uphold. (vi) And then, what was the price to be paid in taking the position you have taken? I have yet to see any Berean admit that the Berean policy has a "cost" associated with it or to try and justify that it is a policy with any Scriptural precedent. (vii) And finally, your position established a union of ecclesias which is a serious step towards the apostasy. Rome would have had no power without an ecclesiastical union to empower it. I am sure you can write some justification for all this Jim, and also to continue your attacks upon those who do not support Bereanism. But I am now confident that it amounts to nothing more than vanity. Some brethren dismiss the "good intentions" of those who hold error but seem to think that their own baptism gives them an unlimited license to practice the same, despite any harmful consequences -- and to claim to uphold the pioneer position and practice while having to admit they really do not. ]
Ans: (i) It is nice to see we are at least finding some common ground. We agree that the ecclesias were not free to establish any basis they wished, but rather any basis that expressed the same principles that were exhibited in the BASF with the DtbR and the CoC.
(ii) On the point of many similar constitutions leading to division, you misunderstood what I was saying. I was not saying that the different but similar constitutions were any problem at all. Clearly, they were not. I'm saying that those who introduced error made those defending the truth against the error, demand a well qualified foundation from which they could make the error apparent to that element who wanted to tolerate the error. Various ecclesias found their original basis unfit for the task of dealing with "the wiles of the devil" and then they dropped their basis for the Birmingham one. That is what caused the ecclesias generally to unify their basis. This was occurring well before the Berean division of 1923. It was happening in bro. Roberts' lifetime, and he did not discourage it. There were these sorts of references every year. Observe the following:
pottsville (Ky.)—Brother R. C. Green writes:—Dr. Thomas introduced the truth here some 30 years ago. The good seed soon sprang up, and prospered till the no judgment doctrine came. This caused great trouble among the brethren at the time, and came very near destroying the influence of the truth in a public way. A few, however, remained who, though not in harmony, continued to meet and break bread. A great effort was made on the part of some to hush the matter and prevent further discussion, and thus things have remained, with only an occasional outbreak, until recently. The question of the nature of Jesus, which created so much trouble in England in “1873,” created some little stir, but was not regarded as a matter of much importance, the brethren for the most part, however, inclining to the free life theory. Since “1879,” the two subjects have again been brought before the ecclesia, causing some of us to resolve to unite ourselves on a surer basis of fellowship. With a view to this end, on the eighth of October, 1882, an agreement was presented to the brethren, setting forth that we, the undersigned, agree that the (published) statement of the “one faith” upon which the Birmingham ecclesia is founded, is true and Scriptural, and that the fables specified therein should be rejected, that the above should constitute the basis of fellowship among believers of the truth, and that we hereby withdraw from fellowship with all who will not endorse the above by signing this agreement. Chdn 1883, pg 96.Neither the policies of Bro. Roberts or bro. Thomas allowed error to evolve in the ecclesias, as you suggest. Human nature does that. In this regard, I think you miss our point. You seem to think that our point of emphasis is the BASF, and you go to great length to try to find some disharmony with this, such as your emphasis on multiple constitutions. Our emphasis is not on the document, but the enforcement of the principles in that document. We are under no misconceptions that an ecclesia meeting on the BASF is exempted from error. Error springs up among us (Berean Christadelphians) from time to time, so we know first hand that that is not the case. Generally speaking, (and very true in times past though this is weakening in Central today) it was a given fact that the ecclesias met on principles in harmony with the BASF. That was never our point or concern. It was the uniformity of enforcing those principles that is our point. The difference may be hard to explain in writing, but I will try. You seem to be concerned that we accept THE BASF without reservation and complain about a man made system. Our point is that ecclesias must accept the principles of the BASF WITHOUT RESERVATION which are divine principles, nothing man made about it.
You say that our position is not scriptural I will reserve my response till you actually make an effort to prove from the Scriptures that withdrawing from error is wrong.
(iii) I do not believe I have ever said that faithful ecclesias must take the position that the Berean ecclesias took in 1923, and again in 1960. (Any changes you suggest in 1980 are simply your imagination.) I don't believe that, and I can't imagine why I would have said it. I personally and generally regard most of the protestant (protesting the loose policies of Central) ecclesias as faithful ecclesias, even the ones who do not fellowship with us. What I have said is that faithful ecclesias should not remain associated with Central. The divine command is to come out from among them, not to maintain some loose association with them.
(iv) I am not in reference to what you are calling the unifying of the Bereans (and what I would call the association of faithful ecclesias) in my reference to taking away the errorist's footholds. I am in reference to the ecclesias generally adopting the Birmingham basis of fellowship to do this. As I said, this was happening in bro. Roberts lifetime.
(v) I'm sure you mean is removing error's foothold allowed by God. My answer is yes, it is not merely allowed, but commanded by God and practiced by the early Christadelphians, as I have exhibited in "Anatomy of a Division."
(vi) The cost is that we lose the association with errorists, and those who may be sound themselves, but who encourage us to associate with errorists. As both these classes sometimes contain relatives and friends, there is a social cost. Jesus promised this would not be easy. But when we look at the option of some loss of friendship now, compared to standing before the judgment seat trying to explain our continued association with apostate ecclesias, the will appear in its true light.
(vii) Finally, faithful ecclesias associating together was not the cause of the formation of the Catholic Church. The inclusion of error in the body was the cause of the formation of the Catholic Church. Go back and reread the complaints made by the Christ-man against the seven ecclesias of Asia Minor. None of them are condemned for associating with other ecclesias who believe and practice the Truth. They are all condemned for harboring the Nicolaitans, Balaamites, Satanists, Jezebelites, and for having lost their first love. Ultimately, the erroneous body is spewed out of the Spirit's mouth. Never is an ecclesia condemned because they abhorred and would not give place to the errorist, and having come out, associated themselves together in love.
4. Is it true that another term for “The things of the Kingdom of God” and “those things that concern our Lord Jesus Christ” are called “First Principles”?
A. Yes, with all the clarifications made above.
5. From the same quote would it be a fair assessment to say that brother Roberts’ position was that “the measure and standard of fellowship”, so far as doctrine is concerned, “must be” the “First Principles” in their scriptural amplitude?
A. Yes, with the above clarifications.
6. Bro. Frank Jannaway wrote, "When I embraced The Truth in 1875 (and, by The Truth I mean the First Principles set out in the Birmingham Statement of Faith), there was, to my knowledge, but one community holding those First Principles as a Basis of Fellowship. That community was known as 'Christadelphian.'" (Frank G. Jannaway, Christadelphians, Then and Now, p. 4-5). Would it be a fair assessment of brother Jannaway’s statement to say that brother Jannaway (young though he was in 1875 being only 16), understood the “Basis of Fellowship” to be “The Truth” as embodied in the “First Principles” then known as the Birmingham Statement of Faith?
A. Yes, understanding that the term "the Statement of Faith" is a shorthand expression for all that makes up our basis of fellowship.
7. In 1927 brother F. G. Jannaway wrote, "The object of this little work is to make as plain as possible why so many Christadelphians the world over have been compelled to stand aside from the Birmingham (Temperance Hall) Fellowship” (Frank G. Jannaway,, Christadelphians, Then and Now, p 3.). Two pages later he goes on to write, “Doubtless some will ask ‘Then why not fellowship all such pending the Judge's decision? Why allow divergent views on one of our thirty First Principles to be a bar to present fellowship ?’” (emphasis mine; FGJ, Christadelphians, Then and Now, p. 5). From these two quotes, do you agree that it was FGJ’s judgment that the action taken in standing aside from “the Birmingham (Temperance Hall) Fellowship” was because “one of our thirty First Principles” was no longer being upheld by “the Birmingham (Temperance Hall) Fellowship”?
A. It was included, certainly. But the matter pertaining specifically to Birmingham (Temperance Hall) Fellowship had more to do with the Commandments of Christ, and a question pertaining to a Christadelphian's position as regards to the use of force and our association with the world's armies, called at that time the Special Constabulary. Clearly, the problem in the US pertaining to the teaching of A. D. Stickler had more to do with the BASF, and his de facto rejection of clauses five, eight, and twelve of the BASF; which is apparent on your web site. Even John Carter, in his article "A Time to Heal" agreed that A. D. Stickler "DID NOT accept without reserve, some of the clauses of 'The Statement of Faith'. (Chdn. 1939:84) These two issues came to a head in 1923, and led many ecclesias to cease fellowshipping the ecclesias associated with Temperance Hall and the Christadelphian Magazine.
Response: I am simply quoting FGJ and asking if you accept FGJ's portrayal. It appears you do not. He says nothing about the CoC. If he were not explicit in saying "one of our thirty First Principles" I could allow your interpolation but it cannot be allowed due to his specificity. ]
Ans: And I'm simply giving you the historical facts of the day. The division from Birmingham Temperance Hall to John Bright Street was not over any principle in the 30 points of the BASF. Bro. Jannaway knew that, and supported the action of the John Bright Street brethren. You know there is no room to question this.
I have been told by brethren like bro. Growcott, that the British brethren soon after 1923 became familiar with the seriousness of the Stickler problem (the seriousness of which had been obscured by bre. Islip Collyer, and C. C. Walker) and that the Strickler problem became a stronger focus. Your quotes here from 1927, where the focus is specifically on the 30 points of the BASF seems to bear this out.
8. In The Berean, 1929, co-editor of The Berean magazine, W. J. White writes, “The Scriptures plainly reveal to us that God requires, as the basis of fellowship, identity of belief in regard to the First Principles of the Truth. Our duty, then, is to uphold this truth, and to be faithful to God's requirements in this matter, by inviting to our fellowship only those who are of one mind with ourselves upon these vital truths.” (1929, p. 12). Do the Bereans today endorse this statement without reservation?
A. Yes, within reason. There are apt to be small, insignificant changes in the way some first principles are believed by brethren, but the essential and fundamental principles are held in common. We might call this the difference in "True Principles" and "Uncertain Details."
9. The quote does not deal with "Uncertain Details" so why interject the phrase? It says, "the First Principles of the Truth". Do the Bereans today endorse the statement above from WJW without reservation?
Ans: There are aspects, even in the statement of faith which are of the nature of uncertain details, (at least if read like a lawyer) and there are differences of opinion accepted on some of these things. For instance, Clause VII reads:
"...by dying, abrogate the law of condemnation for himself and all who should believe and obey him."
Some brethren believe this exactly as it is written, that the law of condemnation was cancelled at death, as explained by bro. Thomas. Others believe it wasn't actually cancelled till after resurrection as taught by bro. Roberts. This is a detail which is not taught in the Scriptures, and which is an uncertain detail. But the intention of the clause, that is, that as a result of his sacrificial death the law of condemnation was cancelled in him, is not questioned.
10. Brother G.V. Growcott, dealing with the exceptive clause wrote, “My own private thought would be that if they sought strength from God in constant prayer, they would be given the ability to endure any condition they found themselves in. This would be my private inner view, but in the light of what Paul says, and not being able to judge how others are constituted, I could not force this view upon them as a matter of First Principle, and therefore of fellowship.” Would it be fair to say that bro. G.V. Growcott’s “measure and standard” (RR) of fellowship was the same “measure and standard” as that stated by Robert Roberts, and Frank Jannaway, that is, the “First Principles” of the Gospel?
A. I'm not sure as to the relevancy of the quote, but the answer to your question is, yes, bro. Growcott was very careful to insist upon the first principle of truth enforced in fellowship, while being equally careful not to place requirements on our brethren that God did not place.
11. Are there any "First Principles" of the Gospel which brother John Thomas did not discover before his death?
A. No. But are you asking me if the written position of Christadelphians changed after bro. Thomas' death, certainly it did. The preamble to the Statement of Faith was added after bro. Thomas' death. Also the amendment to the BASF was not only added after his death, but was, according to bro. Roberts, a position bro. Thomas did not believe should be required in fellowship (Chdn 1896, pg. 475.) Challenges to bro. Thomas' teaching were raised in such a manner that reservation on this point could not longer be accommodated, and so the written position changed to reflect what always was the established position. Bro. Roberts believed, and I agree, that it was the hand of God in this.
Bro. Roberts reasoned concerning the question of Resurrectional Responsibility:
June 1894, pg. 242 "The circular points out that “the ecclesia has not hitherto made this a test of fellowship.” This is true; and if it is now becoming such, it is not because of any changed attitude on the part of those who believed, but because some who believed it are now repudiating it, and inviting the brethren by a determined endeavour (by pamphlet and otherwise) to depart from it; and, not only so, but are declaring the maintenance of the truth in the case to be a work of error, and “a serious interference with first principles, &c.” Perhaps we have been wrong in winking at the denial of a truth that has always been recognised as a part of the Gospel from the beginning; and it may be that God in His providence is forcing us into a more prominent assertion of the fact that He will not be mocked by any of the sons of men to whom the knowledge of His sovereign will is allowed to come; but that He will require it at their hands in the great day of His wrath."
And again:
"The question has now been raised in a way that defies accommodation. We kept back brother Andrew’s name till he himself published it to the world. Having done all we could to keep the controversy at bay, we can but sorrowfully accept the situation created, believing at the same time that the hand of God may be in it in compelling the assertion and proclamation of the whole truth—concerning the day of His anger as well as the day of His favour."Response: No, I was not asking you about the written position (yet). The question is clear enough. Your comments regarding JT and resurrectional responsibility are not accurate. Brother Thomas was against making "the degree of punishment" a matter of fellowship (see your own reference again). Brother Thomas' own summaries of the Gospel from various times shows your assertion cannot be true. And further, your quotation of June 1894, p. 242 is lacking context. It was the South London Ecclesia which is being referred to, not Birmingham. If the statement were true of the Birmingham ecclesia the 1898 amendment would not have been a "reaffirmation" which is what they called it. Your lack of historical knowledge about the resurrectional responsbility issue surprises me and your statements will, sadly, serve as fodder for those who want to deny clause 24. ]
Ans: This was bro. Roberts evaluation. Your disagreement is with him. He left no doubt about what the reservation was:
"We have for years felt uncertain—not as to the doctrine that men who knowingly refuse to submit to Christ are responsible to his judgment-seat at the resurrection, but as to how those ought to be regarded who deny it. The ground of our uncertainty was indicated in the cover note last month to “A. McD.”—namely, the fear of offending against Christ in passing judgment on those whom (otherwise believing on him) he may not condemn, while condemning their folly, in circumscribing his jurisdiction over sinners to those among them who try to obey him—apparently attributing everything to water, and nothing to knowledge. These men do not deny the faith of Christ. They believe in him, and obey him. They are guilty of an error of judgment as to his method of dealing with a particular class of sinners. They recognise the exclusion of that class from life eternal, but imagine that the law of life as construed by them excludes it also from the resurrection to condemnation—holding the sinners of this class “condemned already,” which they undoubtedly are, though not “punished already.” Are we to say their faith in Christ is invalidated by this error concerning the degree of punishment to be meted out to rebels against the light? Here we have always hesitated; and we know Dr. Thomas was against making it a ground of disfellowship. Chdn. 1896 pg. 475The degree of punishment was the degrees between "punished in this lifetime", and "punished at the judgment seat." But without getting any further into the details of the Resurrectional Responsibility discussion, my point is accurate. The written position of the Christadelphians changed to reflect a position that was not insisted upon from the start of our movement, and bro. Roberts regarded this change as necessary and divine. It really doesn't matter to our discussion whether it is the whole teaching, or certain degrees in that teaching; the amendment was a change in the written position, though I agree with you that under any circumstances, it is not a change in the foundation position of Christadelphians. It was something always accepted, with theoretical reservations noted. That changed, when those theoretical reservations became firm and falsely taught positions.
I might add that I do appreciate the way you refer to other writings by bro. Thomas to justify what you say about bro. Thomas' position. Indeed, a man's whole work must be considered and harmonized; and we must not allow a stray sentence here or there to be considered as contradiction and confusion. I hope you will maintain this consistency when evaluating bre. Jannaway and Growcott.
12. Did brother Robert Roberts discover any new “First Principles” of the Gospel after the death of brother John Thomas?
A. No, with the same qualifications as number 8.
13. In an article originally written by Frank G. Jannaway, and edited in 1978 by Gilbert V. Growcott, brother Jannaway states, “T[rue]: God has allowed liberty in many matters in which conscience must guide us. Hence, what is sin to one may not be to another. You yourself have introduced the word 'essentials.' By that, we presume you mean 'first principles.' Only errors which involve those 'essentials' or 'first principles' should bar our fellowship.” (The Berean, 1978, p. 349; originally published in The Christadelphian, 1892). Brother Growcott adds in a preface to the article that the article is "A Defense of the Historic Christadelphian Position" and "a valuable testimony" to "the established Christadelphian position on fellowship up to that time” (1892). Is it the Berean position that, so far as doctrine is concerned, “Only errors which involve those 'essentials' or 'first principles' should bar our fellowship”?
A. Yes, but again with the qualifications I made in answer to your questions, 1, 2, and 3.
14. Brother F. G. Jannaway, in the original 1892 publication of the article referenced above wrote, “Only errors which multiply those ‘essentials’ or ‘first principles’ should bar our fellowship.” In 1978 brother Growcott, edited the sentence quoted in this question to say “Only errors which involve those 'essentials' or 'first principles' should bar our fellowship.” As noted in the previous question, brother Growcott said the article was “A Defense of the Historic Christadelphian Position”, and “a valuable testimony” to “the established Christadelphian position on fellowship up to that time”. If the original article was in fact what brother Growcott claimed, do the Bereans today accept Frank Jannaway’s statement that “errors which multiply”, that is, to add, “first principles” “bar our fellowship”?
A. I see no objection to either word. "Multiply," the way bro. Jannaway is using it, means to increase or extend. He is in reference to those who would extend the meaning of the clauses in the BASF to include certain false doctrines. This is what A. D. Strickler did. He never publicly denied the clauses of the BASF, or desired to add additional clauses (though his arguments are a de facto denying of some of them.) He extended (multiplied) the meaning of existing clauses to include his false teachings. The word "involve" is more accurate, according to modern usage. The way you use "multiply" in your question is the modern use, but it suggests that bro. Jannaway is arguing that only if one wishes to add a false clause to the Statement of Faith, do we have a matter requiring us to bar fellowship. That this was not the meaning of his statement is clear by bro. Jannaway's actions. Neither in the Inspiration matter of 1885, in the Responsibility Question of 1894, or the Constabulary/Partial Atonement question of 1923 were there any suggestions that anyone wanted to add to the Statement of Faith (except the faithful brethren who added matter to clarify the error that was being introduced to the brotherhood.) Bro. Jannaway withdrew fellowship in every case, exhibiting his true meaning.
Bro. Jannaway makes the point crystal clear in the following section from the same article you are quoting from. You will see that the question is not "multiplying" first principles, as you are suggesting, but the matter pertains to fellowshipping those who are not of one mind on existing first principles.
F: Do not let me be misunderstood. We ought not to acknowledge fellowship where there is no agreement upon fundamental elements of the Gospel of Christ. That is the basis of our fellowship—of our communion.
Bro J: And a scriptural basis it is, too. But in the statements you have made, you decline to confine your acknowledgement of this fellowship to those who are in agreement on this question. You are willing to extend fellowship to those who do not see the need for such agreement on those fundamental elements, and who thereby destroy unity of mind on this highly important doctrine of fellowship.
F: If there be agreement among ourselves and others upon the ground of our Faith, and companionship in our efforts to conform to the spirit of God's commands, then we ought to be glad and willing to acknowledge the fellowship.
Bro. J: Yes, 'if! But there is no such agreement, if you acknowledge fellowship with those who—while believing with you on the 'essentials'—are nevertheless willing to fellowship with others who do not see the need for having the same mind. [My emphasis--JP]
[ ? -- Here the Bereans run into a problem as will be seen later in the debate. Nothing special hinges on the Berean answer. But it a witness against them as will be seen ]
"Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off." --Ahab
Response: I checked the Oxford English Dictionary to make sure I used "multiply" in the 1923 sense (which happens to be consistent with "modern usage"). Further, I quoted it in context, "Only errors which multiply...". You have gone off on a tangent which is unnecessary. That "errors" are involved plainly indicates a lack of "one mind". And, uhh, it was Ahab who said the words you take for your own, not Hezekiah. ]Ans: All your checking in the world is not going to matter. I have demonstrated by his action what bro. Jannaway truly meant in the portion of my response you call a tangent. You can argue meanings of words in whatever direction you wish, but you won't change what everyone can easily understand as his true meaning. Do you really, honestly believe you can quibble about the proper usage of a word, to argue against the man's demonstrated life's work? I know you don't. Here is the fact. "Enlarge" is an acceptable usage of word "multiply" and, based on his personal history and action, there is no reason to suggest any other meaning.
I might add this. You seem to have learned your lessons well, from your battles with our "clean flesh" brethren. They go back and wrest bits a pieces to try to tell us that bre. Thomas and Roberts didn't mean what they clearly stated elsewhere, and which they also practiced. Are you now trying to do the same thing with bro. Jannaway, and claim that he didn't really come out from Central over the Constabulary issue, and Clean Flesh?
Your correction of my quote is duly noted, and changed. Thank you.
1) Oddly, you are the one quibbling about the word and yet you are not saying it means anything different from what I have said. You say "enlarge", "increase", "added" or "extend". I used the word "add". All the words have the same basic meaning which is not disputed. 2) The tangent is, specifically, that you wrote, "but it suggests that bro. Jannaway is arguing that only if one wishes to add a false clause to the Statement of Faith, do we have a matter requiring us to bar fellowship". That is your suggestion, your assumption and therefore you are fighting your own paper tiger. 3) Your answer did nothing more than provide context of the quote and then you say you have set forth "the man's demonstrated life's work"? Are you exaggerating again? 4) As to FGJ "com[ing] out from Central", again, you do not know your history very well for "Central" did not exist in 1923. It would not be called (and then only by a few) the Central Fellowship until 1935, 11 to 12 years after FGJ withdrew from the Temperance Hall ecclesia. Ecclesias were not unionized in 1923 as you portray, another modern Berean assumption, another modern Berean mistake, and fatal to your position.]
Ans: You are asking me about a change from "multiply" to "extend," and somehow you think I am the one quibbling about words. Well, whoever is, I'm just glad to see us again, reach some common ground, in that the words all share the same basic meaning, and you are not disputing that. And since we both agree that the words mean the same thing, then we must agree that there is no change in position between the one advocated by bro. Jannaway, and bro. Growcott who reprinted his article. 2. My "tangent" was due to my first understanding of your complaint. 3. I'm glad my answer provided context to the quote. No, I'm not suggesting I demonstrated, in these few phrases bro. Jannaway's life work. I was encouraging you to consider his life work before making the charges I thought you were making, but apparently you weren't. 4. I'll rephrase that to "come out from the body that ultimately became known as Central." Is that sort of accuracy really required? We both know exactly what I meant. And finally, the Christadelphian ecclesias prior to 1923, the Berean Christadelphians ecclesias in and around 1923 and the Berean Christadelphian ecclesias now associate under the same identical principles, albeit we are much smaller now.
15. Brother G.V. Growcott wrote, “We have judged to the extent of standing aside from those who do not fully accept and apply what we believe to be the first principles of fellowship. To this extent we have judged and must judge. We believe these ‘brethren’ are in error in the position of fellowship they take, and we believe faithfulness calls for a standing aside and a testifying against their error (admonition), and an endeavor to persuade them to forsake the error.” (The Berean, 1961, p. 351; 1982, p. 173). Brother G.V. Growcott argues that the Bereans stand aside from others because “of the first principles of fellowship”. Is the doctrine of fellowship therefore a “First Principle”?
[ this is a problematic answer for the Bereans but they cannot deny it because this is the very excuse they use, as shown in the quote above, to deny fellowship with Christadelphians who do not endorse the extreme to which they take the doctrine of fellowship]
A. Yes, the doctrine of fellowship is a first principle. It is, as bro. Roberts called it, a "common sense doctrine." This affirmation will only prove problematic if you can find bre. Thomas and Roberts arguing that fellowship is not a first principle. They called it "the doctrine of fellowship" and "the first condition of association" in the truth. The so called "extreme" to which the Bereans exercise this first principle is defined by bro. Roberts at the end of the Partial Inspiration question where brethren were disagreeing with bro. Roberts as to the application of this doctrine. To this bro. Roberts wrote:
"The controversy on inspiration has forced the re-consideration of this question upon us. We say re-consideration: for it was considered and debated in the beginnings of things connected with the truth in this generation, and satisfactorily disposed of for a time. The principal cause of our trouble in the present situation has been the divergence of view that has prevailed at the bottom on this fundamental question. Many who have allowed the entirely inspired character of the Scriptures, have not been able to see the necessity for insisting upon that truth in our basis of fellowship. They have been inclined to leave it as “an open question.” This is the result of a dim or faulty perception of the apostolic doctrine of fellowship (a common sense doctrine) which requires agreement on fundamentals as the first condition of walking together, or co-operating, associating, or fellowshipping together in the prosecution of the objects of the truth." [My embolding--JP]Bro. Roberts goes on to list the conditions upon which the apostolic doctrine of fellowship is dependent. Among those are the following, which are germane to your question.
"5. —That the first condition of association is the belief of the truth, apart from the perception and reception of which, there is no basis of fellowship.
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 whom 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.” [My underlining--JP] From CHDN. 1885, pg. 385Summary: So far as doctrine is concerned, it is clear that "the measure and standard" of fellowship is the 'things concerning the Kingdom of God' and 'those things that concern our Lord Jesus Christ,' in their scriptural amplitude. These are termed "the whole Truth", the Gospel, and the "First Principles". JP in answering attempts, right up front, to interject "our Statement of Faith with the Doctrines to be Rejected and the Commandments of Christ, enforced in fellowship" into quotes that, in some cases, do not mention any of those elements. No dictionary would define the phrase 'scriptural amplitude' to mean "our Statement of Faith with the Doctrines to be Rejected and the Commandments of Christ, enforced in fellowship".
Scriptural: Of or pertaining to or contained in or in accordance with the Bible
amplitude: extent, largeness, breadthSome of the questions are dealing with a general principle while bro. JP tries to force upon each question a single example of the principles put into practical terms. That single example is the BASF/DTBR and CoC which just happens to be the only thing Bereans recognize as part of their basis of fellowship. I particularly find the addition of the phrase 'enforced in fellowship' noteworthy. The question is, what is the "measure and standard" of fellowship. Jim defines the phrase in a way that includes the very principle of the thing we are trying to define! JP, therefore, engages in a circular argument. And by pushing this definition into every quote JP attempts to redefine what the various quotes originally stated. These reinterpretations serve a Berean attempting to defend Bereanism, but it does not serve the Truth or documented history as we shall see in further questioning.
JP has now admitted (in #3) that Berean practices are different from the pioneer practices. The pioneer brethren did not require a Common Statement of Faith to be accepted in fellowship. Nor were early Christadelphian ecclesias unionized. But these are just the first faults in a system which is a corruption of apostolic and genuine Christadelphian fellowship practices.
ANS: It is necessary, for the purpose of this (or any) discussion to keep terms like ""the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ," well defined. If everyone always meant the same things when they used those words, such clarification would be unnecessary. But Christadelphians don't even mean the same things with those terms. All the churches believe that they believe the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ. Faithful Christadelphians know they do not. Hence, the need to be always clear.
Men upset fellowship in the ecclesia in two ways. By adding to our basis, and by taking from it. That is why it is important to keep the principals defined in our basis of fellowship clear. Is it a Berean defending the things we believe? No doubt! I wouldn't be a Berean Christadelphian if I thought the position wrong. So I fail to see the great crime in this, or even why it should be viewed in any other way.
As regards a couple of your statements, yes, I defined the phrase in a way that includes the very principle of the thing we are trying to define. I'm under the impression that that was what I was supposed to do? I define precisely, your vague phrase. That is not circuitous reasoning. Next, by including my definition in every quote I am defining, not redefining, how Berean Christadelphians understand those phrases. We both want clarity. I'm keeping the matter crystal clear.
In no way have I admitted that the Berean practices are different from the Pioneers. This is clearly explained in my answer in section 3:ii above. We both have agreed that all the early ecclesias accepted the principles exhibited in the BASF. But you argue that since we accept the BASF itself, that somehow this means that we have a different basis than those ecclesias that demanded acceptance to the same principles as were exhibited in the BASF. In this, you are imagining a difference, where none exists.
At some point, you may wish to explain what you mean by "unionized" ecclesias. I have explained that we are an association of ecclesias. That answer doesn't appear to be satisfying you.
* * * * * * *
Since bro. Genusa, as of Oct. 14th is still responding to my answers, and since I want him to be fully satisfied that he has asked, and received answers to all his question, I will extend the closing of this section to Oct. 22nd before I will proceed to the next set of questions he sets forth.
Why the Bereans? A discussion on the history of the Berean Christadelphians
