An Attack Against "The Doctrine of Fellowship"
1). The booklet called "The Doctrine of Fellowship"
2). A Nicodemite's Strategy Concerning Fellowship
3). Word Smithing and Logical Conundrums
4). A Simple Matter of Obedience
5). A Defense of "The Doctrine of Fellowship"
7). How to Attack "The Doctrine of Fellowship"
8). Nicodemite Attacks on Bereans Mimic Early Attacks on bro. Roberts
I was reading a Central Christadelphian web site and came across a Christadelphian Time Line. Always interested in Christadelphian history, I read it attentively, but was genuinely surprised to discover that my booklet "The Doctrine of Fellowship" and I had been included with the Christadelphian errorists. I had just answered some questions presented by that web site pertaining to what was called "separatists," and I knew it took a different stance on fellowship than I, but this inclusion seemed to me to carry the error of Central pertaining to fellowship, to new lows. The pronouncement of error was particularly focused on a little booklet produced by the late bro. Julio Scaramastro and myself, which was nothing more than a collection of writings by bre. Thomas and Roberts, with a few other writers as well.
In starting this, I really want to make a point about our Central brethren to whom this is a response, which, in the give and take of debate will probably become obscured in this web discussion, . We really don't agree that their recommended behavior on fellowship is Scriptural. I think the positions they take are wrong for the reasons I will go through in detail. But it is not my goal, in any of this, to weaken their hand in their fight against error in Central. When we, as young men growing up, would criticize some of the writings and practices of bro. H. P. Mansfield and his failure to observe the doctrine of fellowship, bro. G. V. Growcott used to restrain us, and tell us not to be too critical because "he is the best they (Central) have." Bro. Growcott warned us this way, even while bro. Mansfield was being quite critical of us, labeling us among those who say "touch me not, for I am holy" and calling us "hirelings." The same things are true about certain Central brethren, which I will refer to as our "Nicodemite" brethren. These Central brethren are shining lights, in an area where the truth is seriously dimming. Jesus said, he that is not with us, is against us; and such is obviously the case with some of our Central brethren as regards fellowship. I wish it wasn't the case. But Jesus also said that he that is not against us, is with us; and so are some of our Central brethren that maintain a fight against error on all other first principles of truth, even if we believe that fight is being carried out in disobedience.
I first came across the term "Nicodemite" when reading bro. Stephen Snobelin's essays on Isaac Newton. He used it to refer to Newton, who remained in the Anglican Church, though he had long since ceased to accept it teachings and practices, embracing instead many principles of divine truth. It reminded me very much of our Central brethren who acknowledge the error of Central, and who fight against it to varying degrees; but who refuse to obey the divine command to come out of it, all for varied and personal reasons. Such titles are never perfect, but it will do for our case. If we felt we needed 100% accuracy, we should probably have called it "a fellowship within a fellowship" but that is too long to be practical. "Nicodemite" suggests the respect we have for this class of Central brethren, in that we do recognize them as followers of the Jesus and the Truth, as was Nicodemus; while at the same time conveying to them our reservations of their maintaining an association with a system which cannot in any way be regarded as faithful. And while this paper is primarily a response to a specific Nicodemite web site, I will be more encompassing to take in the objections raised by the many Nicodemite brethren I have come in contact with, over the past 30 years.
1). The booklet called "The Doctrine of Fellowship"
In 1982, bro. Julio Scaramastro approached me about producing a work on fellowship, aimed at exhibiting to Central fellowship what the traditional position of the Christadelphians was. I thought that the way to proceed on such a project was not for either of us to try to write something. That would have no appeal beyond a very narrow group of friends. The greatest spiritual influences in our lives was for me, bro. G. V. Growcott, and for bro. Scaramastro, bro. H. P. Mansfield; and they both had consistently pounded one constant message: Read the Pioneers! Read the Pioneers! Read the Pioneers! Therefore, we decided the best way to proceed on this project, was to assemble the quotes we could find from the pioneer brethren on this subject, into one work.
I went through my collection of Berean Magazines, and cut out all the writings on fellowship that I could find. I pasted up the material, photo copied it, and sent the pages to bro. Scaramastro. He cut the pages, bound them, named the booklet and distributed it as he desired.
When we produced this booklet, it was at a time when the doctrine of fellowship was not really questioned in Central. Bro. Scaramastro and I had both been raised in Central, and the things in the booklet, were the things we had been taught in Central Sunday Schools during the late 1950s through 1960s. We really believed that we were doing this, mostly as a reminder to our Central brethren of what they were supposed to be doing, but what we believed they were no longer doing. I can honestly say that I never had any thought that such a work would ever be considered error, by anyone claiming to be a Christadelphian.
From personal experience, I know that back in those days, the Central brethren who disagreed with my separation from Central never, (and I can’t emphasize this enough,) NEVER argued that my position on fellowship was wrong. Instead they constantly argued that there was no error in Central. And since, according to them, there was no error in Central, I was wrong to leave the Central group. And to be fair to those brethren in those days, the error in Central at least in the USA was a lot more discreet, than what we find today. Remember that in this country (USA,) overwhelmingly most of the brethren had been Bereans before 1952. It is only reasonable that the Berean understanding on fellowship, and most other doctrines, would have been the dominant view, which it was.
There was, starting in the early 70s, the booklet "Biblical Fellowship" which had just been produced by bro. George Booker. This book did argue for the fellowshipping of errorists. But 30 years ago, many Central bookstores, including the Detroit ecclesia, would not even allow "Biblical Fellowship" in their library list, because the ideas were considered so contrary to Christadelphian thought. Not one person that I knew in Central considered the work seriously.
We now come thirty years from that time, and we can see the insidious work of error. This change has been significant. Now, instead of arguing that there is no error in Central, we find Central brethren, admitting to the error, and telling us that that is how life in the truth has always been, and is supposed to be! Now, bro. George Booker, instead of not being able to get his book on Central book lists, is the editor of the most influential Christadelphian publication on the North American continent. Now, a Central brother tells me that the Bereans who returned to Central in 1952, did so because they had "repented of the Jannaway-Diotrephes Heresy." And now, Central has hymns celebrating the walking of the "Wheat and Tares" together! There has been quite a change in thirty years.
And rather than the almost apologetic posture our Central brethren have always maintained around us, now they are becoming very aggressive, and very bold. The condemnations of us are quite remarkable. We are called "Diotrephes" and "hirelings" and "schizmatics" and "separatists." We are compared to the idolaters of whom Isaiah claimed they said, "Touch me not, for I am holy." It is claimed that we are condemned by our fellowship practices, because we place Christ in fellowship with Belial.
In all this, we are placed in impossible positions. For instance, on a "Nicodemite" web site, we find this challenge:
"Two Berean brothers of standing have now addressed this topic and both have failed to reconcile the Berean position with the quotes I've provided."
I'm pretty sure I'm one of the ones referred to, and I answered all those questions to the best of my ability, and would have continued to answer his objections till this was demanded of me:
"You seem to think that you are exempt from answering questions or arguments made. Very well. I will answer your latest email on my web site, for others' benefit since apparently your purpose is to justify either yourself or Bereanism. ... You want me to believe that JT and RR would support a kind of fellowship system they neither believed in and one they consciously refused to institute. None is so blind as he who won't see. Then there is something said in the Scriptures about those who provoke, those who embrace false doctrine and will not repent, those who separate themselves, and those who sow discord amongst brethren. Therefore please never write me again unless you have repented. I will not give you time, time taken from my family and other responsibilities, any longer. stephen"
Now, I had answered all his questions, and I'm pretty sure he knows that. A number of brethren reading the correspondence, confirm to me that I have. But if I hadn't, how am I now to find out what is regarded as unanswered? And how am I to ever answer the questions, since discussion has been broken off and forbidden?
Our Nicodemite brother really had to break off his correspondence with me at this point. The next stage in our discussion was to find all the quotes on the relevant verses pertaining to fellowship, and to compare our understanding with the understanding of the pioneer brethren. This would have clearly exposed the Nicodemite ideas as astray from that of the Christadelphian Pioneer brethren.
The Nicodemites are correct in stating that I believe bre. Thomas and Roberts would support, and in fact did set up the exact fellowship system that we, as Bereans, practice, rather than the "fellowship within a fellowship" system they use . We have carefully laid out the proof before them, and will do so in more detail on this web site. Our doing so generated a very belligerent response. I don't know why, so I won't speculate other than to note the warnings given to us by the apostle Paul:
2 Tim. 4:2-4 "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."
Further, I don't think a single point which I raised in my final e-mail has been responded to on this web site, or by others. I showed, beyond any shadow of doubt, that the arguments now advanced by the Nicodemites, are the identical arguments which were advanced against bro. Roberts, during and following the "Partial Inspiration" division of 1885. Their argument that in saying we are all in fellowship together, implicates God and Christ in any misdeed, knowing or unknowingly fellowshipped was advanced against the practice of bro. Roberts. Their teaching that we are in fellowship with God and Christ, but not necessarily the brethren, was in bro. Roberts' day called the doctrine of "non-fellowship," (a term developed by bro. Thomas to describe his fellowship stand, before he had a correct understanding of fellowship) and advanced against the practices of bro. Roberts in his day. And the Nicodemites arguments that errorists were simply allowed to move on to another ecclesia, was clearly not the case in bro. Roberts' day.
But back to the main point, our Nicodemite brother has quite clearly stated that he will not carry on any further correspondence with me. He ordered me never to contact him again. Therefore, I can't even write him to find out what he thinks I haven't answered, nor can I contact him for answers to the questions I raised. But shouldn't it be considered most unusual to find one forbidding discussion, and then boasting that no one can answer his challenges? It is very strange times we now live in. So I guess we will finish the matter with dueling web sites.
* * * * *
2). A Nicodemite's Strategy Concerning Fellowship
Our Nicodemite brother claims I have not answered his arguments concerning fellowship. I have answered all the points that he has presented. I do feel that he has presented an incomplete argument, and maybe his complaints about "unanswered questions" lie in the part of the argument he has not made. For instance, he says he observes all the teachings of bre. Thomas and Roberts who clearly counseled withdrawal from errorists. The Nicodemite brethren freely admit there are errorists in Central. They remain in Central. So in what manner have they withdrawn from them? This is unclear. Is it only in their personal meeting that they have withdrawn from them? Can errorists attend their memorial, but just not speak? What about those who meet with errorists? I have no idea how such matters are recommended to be handled, and if he is like Nicodemite brethren I have known before him, he won't tell me.
In talking to some of these brethren, I'm often tempted to ask if there is some sort of secret handshake they use, to know who they can fellowship, and who they can't. Some brethren practice a terrible policy, where they will attend a gathering all week, and then leave early Sunday, because they refuse to break bread with some of the ones at the gathering. This is wrong on so many levels. They say they stand and fight the errorist, yet they abandon the flock, and cower away from him at the most relevant time in the week!
When I was still in Central, the Reseda, Ca. meeting received a request from a notable errorist Graham Bacon, then editor of the Shield Magazine, to speak at Reseda. The request was denied, but they were still willing to accept him at the memorials, just not as a speaker. This, I suppose was some sort of fellowship action. I suppose on some level, this makes sense to them. It makes no sense to me.
Our Nicodemite brother speaks of a visit with another brother which convinced him that the presentation of the articles in "The Doctrine of Fellowship" is wrong. What we would have paid to have been in on that discussion! The arguments presented by this brother had to be better than what his disciples have presented to us.
But of the points that he has made, he complains that we have formed a new fellowship, completely severing ties with the old fellowship, which he contends bre. Thomas and Roberts never did. Historically, this view is just not correct. They did form fellowships, separate and distinct from the reformers of their day. First, starting around 1853 they went out from the many reform groups of that day, and formed what eventually became known as the Christadelphians, as distinct from the Church of Christ, Millerites, Baptists, or any other reformist group of the day. Then, in the early 1860s when some could not see themselves clear to separate from certain errors of Christendom, they separated again, and left behind a body that took no name, but which bro. Roberts called "Dowieites." Then in 1873, they separated over the teaching of "Clean Flesh". Some of the left behind group took the name "Nazarites," while many others just joined with the Dowieites. There was yet another division in 1885, and the new group was ultimately called "Suffolk Street" (though in bro. Roberts day, they were called variously "Exchange Rooms," "New Street," "Masonic Hall, " and "Jot and Tittle" fellowship) It appears that around this time, the faithful brethren started to be known as the "Temperance Hall" fellowship, indicating an association with the ecclesia where bro. Roberts resided. And finally (as regards bro. Roberts,) there was a division in 1894 and the new group was called Advocate, or Unamended. Curiously, every error that bro. Roberts separated from, joined together in fellowship. Divisions and separations from error occurred throughout the history of the truth. And while the errorist groups embraced each other, there were no "cross over" between the true Christadelphians and these groups, without consequences related to fellowship (except in cases of brethren being ignorant of true positions.)
What changed in 1923 was that the brethren at Temperance Hall, Birmingham, along with the Christadelphian magazine took a false position. When that happened, a separation then occurred in the body, no different than in 1853, 1862, 1873, 1885, and 1894. The separation was from Temperance Hall, and from all who would fellowship with them. Those who withdrew from error in 1923, as bre. Thomas and Roberts had done in all the above cases, formed a new body, and were named after the Magazine, The Berean. Formerly, the truth was identified by the name "Temperance Hall." After 1923, the truth was known by the name "Berean."
Our Nicodemite brethren generally argue that the divisions in the lifetime of bre. Thomas and Roberts were not distinct divisions, such as exist between the Bereans and Central brethren, today, but rather the same divisions and schisms that exist in the Central body today (such schisms in the body as Paul condemns in 1 Corinthians.). If such was the case, why then did they require reunions? The reunion of the Dowieites, Suffolk Streets, and Advocates to Central in 1956 was a real reunion. The reunion with the Shield (though the division occurred after bro. Roberts death,) was a real reunion. These organizations were distinct and separate from each other, and required reunion to put them back together. If the brethren were already cross fellowshipping each other, no such reunion would have been required. In fact, the talk of reunion, where no division existed, would have been quite comical. For instance, you never hear of Central meetings talking of reunion with other Central meetings today. But we shall show that reunion was already being attempted in the days of bro. Roberts. Why, if no true division existed?
Further, our Nicodemite brethren agree with us that bre. Roberts and Thomas would exclude error from their own personal ecclesia, and they would not visit ecclesias that were known to support error. But they also believe that bre. Roberts and Thomas would not withdraw from other brethren who did fellowship ecclesias they personally excluded. This would be the situation in Central today. We shall show conclusively, that this was not the case.
On a Nicodemite website, it is written of us:
"The Berean keystone of fellowship, consistent with all separatist Fellowships (Berean, Dawn, Old Paths, Maranathan, Watchman et al), is "fellowship without exception" or that they have "fellowship with all in our community who share the emblems". Using this same principle, separatist Fellowships justify their separation from other Christadelphians on the claim that other Christadelphians "fellowship error". If this one premise of "fellowship without exception" is destroyed, we do not have to meander here and there in the pioneer writings arguing this point or that point — though some separatists might want to do this to distract attention from this truth: If this keystone of "fellowship with all in our community who share the emblems" falls, the entire basis of separatist Fellowship and separation falls — unless separatists wish to claim the writings of John Thomas and Robert Roberts are contradictory on "the doctrine of fellowship".
This truly is the crux of the matter, but not with the mechanical rules imagined. Are we, or are we not in fellowship with brethren of good standing, in our fellowship? Are we scripturally permitted to knowingly identify with brethren astray on first principle subjects, so long as they are in other ecclesias, and we do not personally fellowship with the errorist? That is the difference between us. The Nicodemites would answer that they are not in fellowship with those in Central who are astray on first principle subjects, even though they are members in good standing in their respective ecclesias, and they believe they bear no responsibility for the error they associate with, in calling themselves Central. We believe such a system is entirely unworkable by faithful men, and among the reasons God has forbidden us from partaking in that system.
It is suggested that we should just look at a couple of excerpts from bro. Thomas in 1870, and not "meander" though the history of the brotherhood. I'm sure they want to discourage us from "meandering here and there in the pioneer writings arguing this point or that" because the statements our Nicodemite brethren make, will not stand such a "meandering." The "meandering" is required to place the Nicodemite's contentions in context. He has quoted from bro. Thomas' earliest writings which were clearly wrong, (which even our Nicodemite brother agrees were wrong,) but he wants to still use them to infer meanings onto the later writings of bro. Thomas, which he suggests are all we need. We have used bro. Roberts writings in our email discussion, to show that bro. Thomas went away from those early statements, bro. Roberts saying that he believed these things only while coming out of the fog of Christendom, and bro. Roberts claimed that those appealing to these writings desired to reenter that fog. We agree with bro. Roberts. Bro. Thomas went away from these early writings, and therefore all bro. Thomas' later statements must be understood in harmony with what bro. Roberts was writing in his magazine while bro. Thomas was yet alive. They are not to be understood according to a teaching he had completely gone away from (if he ever truly believed--as bro. Roberts said he didn't.)
Why our Nicodemite brethren claim we have not answered this is a mystery. This is the question that we have consistently answered for him. We showed examples from Christadelphian history which specifically dealt with this issue. We have quoted bro. Roberts specifically to this issue. In this paper, we will show abundantly more proof, including a detailed examination of the "Partial Inspiration" division, where we can see bro. Roberts' teaching on this very point, put into practical application, so there can be no doubt as to what was intended. We therefore have no idea what his true objection is.
We showed conclusively that bro. Roberts operated on our principles in 1885. In 1885, during the "Partial Inspiration" division, bro. Roberts carried correspondence from Cardiff, explaining that a few brethren withdrew from the majority there, due to the Cardiff brethren "fellowshipping those who do not believe in the complete inspiration of the Scriptures." He received a correspondence from bro. G. A. Birkenhead, who complained that this was not true, and no one in Cardiff believed in "partial inspiration." Bro. Roberts refused to publish the correspondence, which was his policy for brethren writing who were not in fellowship. And Bro. Roberts acknowledged that bro. Birkenhead's point may be correct. But then he pointed out to Cardiff, that they maintained fellowship with brethren elsewhere, that is, not in Cardiff, who did deny the complete inspiration of the Scriptures. And as long as they were going to do that, they could not be accepted in fellowship. This is the Berean position. The principles of the truth apply to brethren "elsewhere and anywhere" as bro. Roberts says. "Locality makes no difference to fellowship," as bro. Roberts says. And if they wanted to be received in fellowship, all the Cardiff brethren had to do was to refuse to fellowship partial inspiration, or those anywhere who make themselves responsible for that evil doctrine by tolerating it in their fellowship.
Cardiff.—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)
Our Nicodemite brethren have been quite critical of us, because we refuse to fellowship them, though they regard themselves as sound in the truth. If they will conform to the request of bro. Roberts to the Cardiff ecclesia, we would fellowship them. Will they refuse to fellowship with brethren, elsewhere and anywhere, who tolerate error in fellowship?
Our Nicodemite brother does not ever quote bro. Roberts for support in his position as stated above, but has a few quotes from bro. Thomas, which we shall deal with in detail here, which he believes justifies his position. But bro. Roberts had behaved identically the same way 20 years earlier, when bro. Thomas was still alive, during the Dowieite division. This gives us the background for understanding these 1870 quotes. The division from the Dowieites was a very personal matter to bro. Roberts. These are the brethren who he spent his early years in the truth with. Bro. George Dowie had married bro. and sis. Roberts. The Aberdeen ecclesia was his first contact with Christadelphians. Bro. Thomas' insistence, that he withdraw fellowship from those brethren was quite difficult for him to accept.
The difficulty is referred to in bro. Roberts autobiography, called "My Days and My Ways." It is recorded under the subtitle, "Strained Relations with Dr. Thomas." Bro. Roberts had written to bro. Thomas defending the fellowshipping of the Dowieites, but before bro. Thomas had answered, he wrote again, informing bro. Thomas that he had withdrawn from them. Here is bro. Thomas' reply. Note how it goes to the very heart of our discussion. Bro. Thomas from New York, insisting that bro. Roberts in Birmingham, must have withdrawn from brethren in Scotland.
“DEAR BROTHER ROBERTS, --I have received from you two letters –one dated February 11th, and the other May 30th –to neither of which have I been able to find time to reply. In relation to the former one, I consider the delay has been and advantage to us both; and in regard to the last, I do not think the procrastination will have resulted in any harm. Had I replied to the former, I should have had to do battle with you to bring you into the position you now occupy with regard to those blind leaders of the blind – Duncan, Dowie, Fordyce and Co. When the truth is in question, the benefit of all doubts should be given to it, not to those whose influence with respect to it is only evil and that continually. You erred in giving them any benefit of doubt in the premises; but I rejoice that you have seen the error, and will no more send inquirers after the truth to inquire at such Gospel nullifiers as the.
“I have a copy of your letter to Dowie. It is straightforward and to the point. We can have no fellowship with men holding such trashy stuff as the April number of the falsely-styled Messenger of the Churches exhibits. A man who believes in the Devil of the religious world and that he has the powers of disease and death, etc., is ignorant of ‘the things of the Name of Jesus Christ.’ If what are styled ‘the churches’ are not delivered from the influence of the above firm of pretentious ignorance, our endeavours to revive apostolic faith and practice in Britain will be a miserable failure. No one should be recognised as one of Christ’s brethren who is not sound in the first principles of the Gospel before immersion. The Kingdom and the Name are the great central topics of the Testimony of Deity. These are the things to be elaborated; and he that is not well and deeply versed in these only shows his folly and presumption in plunging head over ears into prophetic and apocalyptic symbols and mysteries.
It is clear that bro. Roberts withdrew from the Dowieites for specific errors. But note this discussion pertaining to Aberdeen in the life time of bro. Thomas:
Christadelphian 1868, pg. 206 Aberdeen .—We must decline to publish intelligence from this place, so long as those in it professing the truth, identify themselves with the Dowieites by fellowship. When they have taken up a faithful position, news of their movements will be interesting and useful. Till then, we must forbear to compromise ourselves by co-operation with those who hold the enemy by one hand, while stretching out the other in friendship.Note again this position by bro. Roberts, because it goes directly against the argument of the Nicodemites. The Aberdeen brethren were themselves sound. Bro. Roberts agrees with this. But he still refuses their fellowship, because they maintain fellowship with error, in this case the Dowieites..
Our Nicodemite brethren believe they can and should maintain what amounts to a fellowship, within Central fellowship, one which can remain separate from the error of that body, while at the same time having some sort of union with it. They can't. That is not my speculation, but divine prophesy through the apostle Paul, that a little leaven leavens the whole lump. And even when a notable man, like a bro. H. P. Mansfield arises, a man who can keep wolves at bay for the brief period of a man's life, and a man who can by force of character slow down the effects of leaven; how quickly we note the energy leaves, upon his death. Logos, a fellowship within Central Fellowship, is now sick, and in decline. The magazine subscription is shrinking. And its members, without bro. Mansfield, are simply not equipped well enough to withstand the attacks from their own fellowship. The Bible prophesy is true. The leaven wins. The only way to escape it is to follow Paul's advice, and "purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new loaf."
The faithful brethren in Central underestimate their enemy. Why was bro. Mansfield permitted such authority in Central? Because he was a tool used by the enemies of the truth to unite the errorist Shield fellowship, to the Central group in 1957. When objection was made to the fellowship of Shield, due to the teaching of "Partial Atonement" (though at that time it was called "Clean Flesh") bro. Mansfield was held up as a shining example of what Shield believed. This was, of course, an illusion, but it worked on the majority of Central, all but the Antipas brethren who then formed the "Old Paths Fellowship." But after Central had created him as an example, they had to endure him for a time, though he warred ferociously against their corruptions in every area but fellowship. But now his time is gone, and Central will never allow another such brother, the authority and position bro. H. P. Mansfield obtained, to maintain the truth.
* * * * *
3). Word Smithing and Logical Conundrums
The Nicodemites have coined certain phrases which they apply to our position, which, like all descriptions, tends to overstate our position. One of these is "fellowship without exception." Another similar one is that "we are in fellowship with all who share the emblems." These expressions are generally true, because we do believe we are in fellowship with all the brothers and sisters of our fellowship in good standing, without exception, and we take great strength from it. But we do not believe these things in the mechanical way they imagine. We do not believe fellowship is a conduit whereby sins or righteousness can be transmitted from one to another. We believe fellowship is a doctrine which must be observed. And the way we observe it is to work diligently and lovingly with those brethren we associate with, and refuse to fellowship with error, or ecclesias who do fellowship error.
This is the routine way fellowship is maintained in the Berean fellowship. But into these thoughts, certain technical questions are raised, which are thought to raise logical impossibilities. And I suppose, if we believed such mechanical constructions, this would be true. But we do not believe such things.
One such mechanical construction is related to brethren who take the emblems uninvited. If a brother (or any person) takes the emblems uninvited, does that automatically make us in fellowship with them? I think all would agree that such a person taking the emblems uninvited was not in fellowship with us, so that would be an exception to our general belief that we are in fellowship with all in our fellowship, without exception.
The other exceptional condition is when we come to the brethren who were sound, but become errorists, or as bro. Thomas says, become bewitched, and disgrace the truth. Are we in fellowship with such an one while the ecclesia carefully and lovingly employs Matt. 18 in regards to such a brother? Are we in fellowship with these, "without exception?" There is certainly a sense that we are in fellowship, particularly in the case of the errorist who develops his thoughts while amongst us. We would extend to such a person all the care and love and patience that we possibly could to recover them, while condemning the false teaching and working hard to limit and destroy any roots that might develop. The care and concern such a brother would receive would certainly be "fellowship;" while our condemnation and efforts at the destruction of their new doctrine would clearly not be. Bro. Thomas says we are not in fellowship with such an one, and that appears to me to be a reasonable spiritual view. We have no fellowship with the error in any reasonable understanding of a partnership with it. We oppose it, attack it, condemn it, though it may be among us while we follow divine commands regarding withdrawal. So there would be no fellowshipping of the view. But technically, such an one would still be fellowshipped as a brother until Matt. 18 worked it course, so technically, we would be in fellowship. So are we, or are we not in fellowship with such an one? Jesus knows! But the thing I do know, it that that is exactly what we are supposed to do in such a situation. Christ will unravel the technicalities for us.
But the point of our difference with our Central brethren does not revolve around these exceptional conditions. We do not withdraw from Central fellowship because error develops in their midst. Error develops in our midst. That is not the issue. We withdraw from them, because they have ecclesias which accept error, and refuse to withdraw from error, whether directly in an ecclesia, or in another ecclesia. We do not withdraw because error occurs. We withdraw over a refusal to deal responsibly (according to Scriptural precept) with it!
4). A Simple Matter of Obedience
From a personal standpoint, in duty to preserving the truth, I much prefer doing battle with those who argue our (the Berean Christadelphians) fellowship position is wrong. I think this point is far clearer, than is the point of what a specific brother may or may not be teaching in a specific area. Paul said "come out from among them and be ye separate." And again, "Withdraw yourself from every brother that walketh disorderly and not after the precepts you received of us." John said if any bring not this doctrine (the doctrine of Christ) then receive him not into your house (ecclesia). If brethren excuse themselves from these commands, inventing theories by which they can limit the scope of these commands, then the argument becomes quite simple. You will either obey divine command, or you will find a way to excuse yourself from obeying divine command. Reduced to it lowest common denominator, the decision becomes quite clear.
There is no command or law, where the flesh cannot come up with excuses based on inferences to excuse ourselves from obedience. Paul fellowshipped error, our Central brethren tell us, so we can too! This is inferred from his writings as a justification for fellowshipping error. We see this behavior of avoiding divine command by inventing inferences from the very beginning. Eve was told that if she ate from the tree, she would die. She considered the Serpents reasoning that she would not die, and inferred from the immortality of the Elohim, in whose likeness she was created, that in fact she wouldn’t die. Her inferences were wrong!
There is no command or law, that the flesh cannot excuse under the most noble of pretense. "We have to stay and fight the error" our Central brethren tell us. A noble thought indeed! King Saul was commanded to go and utterly destroy the Amalekites, and all that they had. He went down and destroyed the nation but brought back spoil. When confronted by Samuel, the King said that the reason he didn’t destroy the livestock of the Amalekites, was that he was going to make a great sacrifice to the Lord. A noble thought, indeed! Did God excuse King Saul’s disobedience?
"And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king."1 Sam. 15:22-23
Indeed, the parable most frequently used to justify the "stay and fight" argument of the Central brethren, the Parable of the Good Shepherd of John 10, concludes:
John 10:27 "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:"
Not so, we are told! "We are to be the ecclesial shepherds, and we have to make the sheep listen to our voice, we are therefore exempted from listening to Jesus'!" But the very parable used to justify ignoring the voice of the True Shepherd, warns us of other shepherds. Jesus tells us that he is the shepherd, and he is the door, and we can only enter into life eternal through him. And he also warns us that all others are thieves and robbers. We will either be the sheep, obedient to the true shepherd, or we will be an "ecclesial shepherd" potentially robbing the true sheep of life.
There is no command or rule, or law, that the flesh cannot excuse by limiting its scope. "We have to withdraw from error in our ecclesia, but we can’t be responsible for other ecclesias" our Central brethren tell us. Criticism of Bereans, based upon these limitations was first called "Block Disfellowship" by bro. Harry Whittiaker, and the same view is now called "World Wide Fellowship" by Nicodemites. These thoughts are not in any way noble, but are the same thoughts as Cain had when he answered God, "Am I my brother’s keeper?" Such an effort presumes to keep itself pure, while allowing (one might even suggest providing) a conduit for error to continually attack others in its fellowship.
So it seems to me that this new approach to fellowship by Central, provides a much clearer choice for the brethren. The choice is between complete obedience, or of some of an invented excuse to justify disobedience.
Central folk are always telling me how insignificant we are. How our gatherings are simple and basic, (shallow they like to say) almost always focused on the first principles of Truth. How we can't put on wonderful teaching efforts, with television coverage. How we can't maintain international missionary efforts. And when I think about these things compared to the simple principle of obedience, I often think of Elijah, looking for assurance from God after fleeing from the face of Queen Jezebel. And as he stood on Mount Horeb, there came wind that tore mountains, followed by earthquakes and fire. But God was not in the mighty displays of wind, earthquake and fire; but in the still small voice. Simple obedience is that still small voice.
* * * * *
5). A Defense of "The Doctrine of Fellowship"
This is a defense of the booklet I assembled, named "The Doctrine of Fellowship." It is done directly in response to a web article which is critical of the work. This web site believes itself to be an attack on "The Doctrine of Fellowship." We had this email exchange over his web article during the time we were having an email discussion on the doctrine of fellowship:
Jim Phillips: "I notice you have started to build your defense"
Nicodemus: "To be forthright, I didn't view it as a defense. I view it as an attack upon a false position."
The problem is that at no time do the articles ever attack the principles exhibited in the booklet. The efforts of putting new meanings to these articles reads like a defense, not an attack. As Bereans, we attack the Central position when we point out that Paul said to withdraw from "every" brother that walketh disorderly and not after the precepts we learned from him. We attack when we show John's teaching that to fellowship false doctrines is to be a partaker, "fellowshipper," of their evil deeds. But they reason that Paul fellowshipped error, and the first century ecclesias fellowshipped error, so we can too! That is a defense, not an attack. Attack us! Show us the verses that say we should fellowship error. Show us the writings from the early Christadelphians that say we should fellowship error. Or, if that can't be done, show us the verses that say we are not in fellowship with those we break bread with. We are condemned for striving for purity of faith. Show us the Scriptural condemnation of purity of faith. Then, you will be making an attack!
Now there are verses which are used by Central brethren like George Booker and Harry Whittiaker, which do attack the Christadelphian doctrine of fellowship directly. The parable of the Good Shepherd is used to attack those of us who separate from error, as "hirelings." There is the parable of the Wheat and Tares, where we are attacked as presuming the responsibility of Angels when we withdraw from a brother, because the wheat and tares are supposed to grow together till the Angels separate us. Why can’t our Nicodemite brethren come to the attack and use these verses?
The answer is that they wish to rewrite history and argue that their fellowship position is the original position of the pioneers. But to use these verses would be to expose that position as false, because the in depth explanations of these parables by the early Christadelphians, such as bro. Roberts in Nazareth Revisited, never include the interpretation our modern Central brethren use. In fact, there are whole articles from early Christadelphians that the parable of the Wheat and Tares is not about fellowship.
So it is clear, and made clearer through our discussion, that the fact is that our Scriptural position is the Scriptural position of the early Christadelphians, and that cannot be challenged. This really is the true test for thinking brethren. I made this same challenge to bro. Richard Stone when he was arguing that his version of "Partial Atonement" was the same teaching of bre. Thomas and Roberts. If this was truly the case, I reasoned to him, then he should have been able to prove this by an appeal to the similar use of Scriptures. I provided him nine verses, all fundamental to the subject, where his explanations of those verses were opposed to the explanations offered by bre. Thomas and Roberts. I challenged him to provide examples where bre. Thomas and Roberts ever used his explanations for those verses. I provided him many instances where bre. Roberts and Thomas interpreted the verses exactly as I had He declined this challenge.
Our Nicodemite brother ended our discussion, long before we could get to that point. He ended this discussion before what he truly does believe about fellowship, was even properly defined. He prefers to stand a long way a way, and cast stones, rather than come directly to the fight where he will be exposed. So all he left us with are a bunch of inferences from Scriptures, but no Scriptural teaching itself. Can inferences and excuses be made against our position? Sure that is always the case.
* * * * *
What the Nicodemites do attack is the manner in which the Berean fellowship maintains itself, and the difficulties we have experienced over the years, and frankly, will experience again in the future. There really was no reason for us to deal with these things, at this point in our discussion. If the Berean Fellowship was every bit as bad and corrupt and hypocritical as our critic imagines, that would not change any single fact pertaining to the principles of fellowship. If their accusations were valid, all that would mean was that the Bereans were not an acceptable body of brethren to walk with. It wouldn’t change a single thing about the principles of fellowship. Therefore, until the principles of fellowship are clearly understood, it made no sense to worry about the latter.
Towards the end of our discussions, it was apparent that there was a high level of frustration that I wouldn’t address specific complaints against the Bereans. To me, it was a matter of order. First, lets establish clearly what the principles of fellowship are. Then, understanding clearly that we cannot associate ourselves with error, let us concern ourselves with what, if any, body of believers we can enter into fellowship with.
I did deal with his doctrinal inferences, which were made against the Berean fellowship position. There were four of them.
1. The Bereans err, because brethren are not necessarily in fellowship with brethren in their fellowship. This was condemned by the early Christadelphians as the doctrine of "non-fellowship of the brethren."
2. The Bereans err, because we say we are in fellowship with all in our fellowship, and we say we are in fellowship with God and Christ. It is reasoned therefore that if any member is not walking in light (whether secretly, or during a time of disorder,) then our sins are imputed to or through each other, and we therefore place God and Christ in fellowship with Belial. This is dealt with in more detail here.
3) The Bereans try to keep our teaching and belief pure, and therefore, it is reasoned, we are not the fellowship of the Apostles who had error in their ecclesias.
4). The Bereans practice excommunication, which charge also changed during the course of our discussion. He ignored the traditional meaning of the word, and what he meant was that when a brother was taken out of fellowship by one ecclesia, he is out of fellowship with all ecclesias. We do believe that is the case, in all but the most unusual of issues, and then only pertaining to walk and conduct errors, where sincere brethren can reach different conclusions about the actions of another. But this is not excommunication. It is withdrawal, and it was practiced in the early Christadelphian ecclesias, as I have abundantly showed, and will show again.
His non doctrinal complaints is this.
1. That Bereans have centralized control. Our Nicodemite brother's argument changed drastically on this point, stating early on that we were controlled by influential brethren. That morphed into his suggestion that we were controlled by a principle. I had no objection to the latter complaint, as it is true. We do control ourselves by a uniting principle, called the doctrine of fellowship. But then, after he refused further communication and as he completed his thoughts on his web site, he went back to his original complaint, making the claim I omitted portions the Pioneer writing to apparently cover the fact of his imagined "control" by influential brethren.
I showed him from the pages of the Christadelphian magazine that every one of these charges which he has made against the Bereans, are identically the same charges made against bro. Roberts, and bro. Roberts had condemned them! If the Nicodemites are not going to listen to bro. Roberts, they sure aren't going to listen to me.
* * * * *
7). How to Attack "The Doctrine of Fellowship"
It should be obvious to all as to what it takes to attack our booklet. Bro. George Booker’s book, called "Biblical Fellowship" is a direct attack against the things which the pioneer brethren believed and taught, which things are exhibited in our booklet. In his book he challenges the exposition of every verse that bre. Thomas and Roberts use to make their case for the doctrine of fellowship. But bro. Booker makes no pretense that we have misunderstood bre. Thomas and Roberts, as our Nicodemite brother does. Bro. Booker simply gives us his own explanations of the various verses pertaining to fellowship.
The same can be said for bro. Harry Whittiaker. Writing about the Pioneer Christadelphian teaching on fellowship, he complains bitterly against the position which he admits that Christadelphians have held for "over a Century." Bro. Whittiaker once wrote:
"The apostle John counselled "if there come any unto you and bring not this (true) doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed. For he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds." For over a century these words have been made the sheet anchor of a policy of root and branch disfellowship."
Bro. Whittiaker is, of course, correct. That verse from 2 John 11 has been the way that Christadelphians understood our relation to one another, in fellowship, since our foundation. This was included in bro. Roberts article called "The Principles of Fellowship:" Search any Nicodemite's fellowship writings for the following section of bro. Roberts article. You won't find it! Bro. Roberts wrote:
"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)."
So from our foundation, we have been very clear. If brethren welcome into their house (ecclesia) those who are unsound, then they are bidding Godspeed to the errorist which John forbids us to do. The brethren who disobey this divine precept and welcome the errorist, even though they may be individually sound, are in a wilfully disobedient position in regards the teachings of the Apostles, and Paul told us concerning such brethren: "Withdraw yourself from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the traditions (precepts, teachings) you received from us." So yes, this verse has been the anchor to the Christadelphian position on fellowship for over a century as stated by bro. Whittiaker. .
Now bro. Whittiaker, and our Nicodemite brethren are making the exact same argument pertaining to fellowship, but they come from a completely different position. Bro. Whittiaker is arguing for a change from the established position which he recognized as over a century old. Bro. Whittiaker concludes his article, condemning the established Christadelphian fellowship policy which he views as extreme, and asking for a change in that policy this way:
"Is it not high time that iron curtains fashioned in the Victorian workshops be rolled up? Or shall their rust continue to be a witness against us now and in the day of judgment?"
Our Nicodemite brethren must think bro. Whittiaker to be quite silly. Doesn't bro. Whittiaker understand that this fellowship position was not forged in Victorian workshops at all, but by bro. F. G. Jannaway in the "Roaring 20's"? The reference above to the "curtains fashioned in the Victorian workshop" is obviously a reference to the early teachings of the Christadelphian brethren and their doctrine of fellowship. Bro. Whittiaker has no question that the principles he calls "block disfellowship" which really means withdrawal from errorists and those who bid Godspeed to errorists; was the policy of the early Christadelphians when our movement was founded in the Victorian age.
I think a valid question is, what is the difference between the writings of bro. Whittiaker, and the writings of modern Nicodemites? How can modern Nicodemites claim to be writing in the tradition of the pioneers, while bro. Whittiaker knew and was clear that he wasn't, while they both argue for the same position? The answer, to me, is clear. In the days when bro. Whittiaker was forging this path, the brethren read the pioneer brethren and knew what they taught. The brethren would have laughed at him had he tried to make the point that the pioneer brethren believed what he taught. But today, brethren are far less familiar with those writings, and so this revisionist history can pass.
* * * * *
8). Nicodemite Attacks on Bereans Mimic Early Attacks on bro. Roberts
In 1891, there was an effort to convince the brotherhood that the principles of fellowship advocated by bro. Roberts were in error. It is amazing how similar the arguments of this pamphleteer are, when compared to the arguments now advanced by the Nicodemites. It shows there is truly nothing new under the sun. The brother in 1891 argued by advancing the early writings of bro. Thomas to oppose the practices of bro. Roberts. The brother argued, that the act of fellowship was between Christ and God, and man couldn’t control it. He argued that the established fellowship position meant sins are transmitted to each other. He argued that we are not in fellowship with those in our fellowship. He even argued the position that the established position meant that Christ was in fellowship with error, since at times, we are! In other words, he makes all the same arguments as our Nicodemite brethren. Here are his words, and observe how close they are to the modern writings:
"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.
Note how the argument of this brother, and the argument of the Nicodemites is the same argument. If we fellowship error, our fellowship must involve God and Christ in that error. But, like bro. Whittiaker, this pamphleteer had no misconception about what the established fellowship position was. He had no imaginations that he was arguing for the established position of the early Christadelphians. Quoting from his pamphlet, he wrote:
"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." Chdn 1892, pg 60.
But now we see a different approach. It is argued that the loose positions on fellowship which are argued for by the Nicodemites, and bro. George Booker, and bro. Harry Whittiaker, and this 1891 pamphleteer, are actually the position of the pioneer brethren! They rewrite history to argue that this never was the established position of the pioneer brethren. These other brethren did not share this illusion with our modern brethren. It is a new doctrine which argues that in fact, fellowship with the errorists has been the established position of Christadelphians from the foundation of our movement. And his new doctrine requires that they attack the collection of the pioneer brethren's writings in "The Doctrine of Fellowship."
