3). Nicodemites Astray
As we pointed out in in our introduction, while we acknowledge that our Nicodemite brethren are sound in the truth, he is unwilling for whatever reason, to walk with the Antipas. He has created a defense around four fundamental errors pertaining to fellowship. It is these errors which lead him to his false conclusions. Of those four, two are quite seriously wrong, and based on the same mistake. A third is a failure to understand our responsibility, and the fourth is simply a matter of faulty perception. Of the two serious issues, both are based upon one verse, 1 John 1:3 The verse in John reads:
1 John 1:3 "That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ."
1). The first error is their reasoning that since fellowship is between the Father, Son, and the individual, they bare no responsibility for continuing to fellowship the beliefs of the individuals in his fellowship. They actually believe they are not necessarily in fellowship with those in their community. Their fellowship is with Christ, and therefore with all in fellowship with Christ. Those in their community which Christ does not recognize, they believe they are not in fellowship with--though they may break bread with them, or cooperate with them in many ways.
2) The second error is based upon the first. They believe that if we say we are all in fellowship together, then we place Christ in fellowship with Belial. Nicodemites treat fellowship between us and Christ, as if it is the same thing as exists between brethren who fellowship each other. To the Nicodemites, if we say we are in fellowship with a brother who is walking disorderly, and since we believe we are in fellowship with Christ, we then place Christ in fellowship with that brother who is walking disorderly. This disorder may be secretly held, or it may be during a time of ecclesial distress when error is introduced and tolerated for the time necessary to be worked out: it doesn't matter. When that happens, if we are all in fellowship together, then the sins of each other are imputed to each other, and therefore we, and Christ are in fellowship with Belial. And since Christ can't be in fellowship with Belial, it is reasoned we can't be in fellowship with the error, either, even though we may be breaking bread with them.
3) The third error grows out of the first two. If the first two points are acknowledged, then all concern for purity in the ecclesias go away. We are in a "non-fellowship" position with the error, so it is not of our concern. The Nicodemite argues that to insist upon doctrinal purity in all the ecclesias, disqualifies us from being like the first century ecclesias, as those ecclesias suffered from many impuities.
4) The fourth error is that the Nicodemite invents a new definition for "withdrawal" and "excommunicate," and then condemns us for practicing "excommunication" of the brethren who are astray or "turned over to Satan" (that is, turned over to the synagogue of the Satan.)
* * * * *
Concerning Point #1: This first point cannot be developed from Scripture. The argument is that Paul was in fellowship with ecclesias which had errorists, as were the first century ecclesias. Since the apostles were in fellowship with God, and were in fellowship with the first century ecclesias, then those brethren in the first century ecclesias must not have been in fellowship with the errorists in their midst. And for proof, some of the earliest writings of bro. Thomas are advanced.
Bro. Thomas was baptized for the final time in 1847. Following this, he traveled to Britain to lecture on the truth which he had uncovered from the darkness that make up the world’s religions. Bro. Thomas’ views on fellowship at this time, were quite similar to the views as now held by our Nicodemite brethren. But bro. Thomas was more consistent than they. His view was that fellowship was between himself and God, and therefore who he broke bread with, or cooperated in fellowship with on a day by day basis, was inconsequential. He fellowshipped with the Disciples of Christ (Campbellites or Church of Christ) in the United States, and regularly fellowshipped men who embraced all the traditional Christian beliefs. He did not believe he had the authority to exclude any man from fellowship, whether Trinitarian, or immortal soulist. This is the logical outworking of that thought process. If we have no authority to include or exclude anyone, we should all return to the Churches which is where bro. Thomas had found himself. Our Nicodemite brethren will not attend the Churches, so we presume they have some modified version of bro. Thomas' early thoughts, which permits them to withdraw fellowship in certain circumstances, but fellowship errorists, or supporters of errorists in other circumstances.
Bro. Thomas' change in fellowship position is documented here in detail. The points made at the link, is that bro. Thomas did not retain his view that we can fellowship error without incurring responsibility. Further, in Eureka, bro. Thomas is very clear that the apostles lived in the time of the Apostolic Fellowship State. It was a time of ecclesial and doctrinal purity. When error arose in the ecclesia, which it did as testified by the few instances recorded of this era, it found no home, and therefore went out from the apostle's ecclesia. It was a time when the ecclesias generally existed in doctrinal purity. Bro. Thomas wrote of the Apostolic State in Eureka I:
Their faith in the “things of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” was unmixed with Nikolaitanism , or “philosophy and vain deceit after the tradition of men, and the elements of the world;”
Therefore, drawing conclusions from what bad behavior did develop in the early ecclesias such as at Corinth, and justifying the toleration of false doctrine through those conclusions is unfounded, and certainly not the teachings of bre. Thomas and Roberts. Error arose, but the apostles gave them "place by subjection, no, not for an hour." An article by bro. Robert Roberts in 1892 makes identically the same point in response to an article written by Thomas Williams (who ultimately led many brethren astray, encouraging the continuing of fellowship with those who refused the amendment to the BASF.) Following the division in 1885 over the partial inspiration issue, a brother who found himself out of fellowship with the Christadelphians advanced these same points which are now raised, to bro. Roberts. This brother, in a pamphlet arguing for a more "Open Door" to fellowship tried to draw a conflict between the teaching of bro. Roberts at the time of this division, and the early teachings of bro. Thomas. Think about that, because it is an important point. The principles stated by bro. Thomas in 1848, and earlier in 1837 were advanced as contradictory to bro. Roberts’ position in 1891, in bro. Roberts' own lifetime. And note carefully how bro. Roberts responded to this. He didn't argue that people misunderstood his plain teachings on fellowship. Instead, he agreed with the brother that his position was not the position of bro. Thomas in those early days. Here is bro. Roberts answering these points:
"The argument from Dr. Thomas is inapplicable, unless our friend maintains that the doctor’s scriptural enlightenment was complete from the very start. In 1837, he was only beginning to feel his way in many things. He spoke of the whole Campbellite community (to which he belonged) as persons only "beginning to emerge from the smoke of the great city (Babylon)," and it was to persons in this position that he applied the expression of opinion quoted by our friend, in italics, that in performing acts of dis-fellowship, they were "overstepping the bounds of modesty, decorum, and discretion and propriety." In later writings, from which we could precisely quote, if need arose, he plainly laid down the apostolic doctrine that to have fellowship with error in doctrine or practice, was to be responsible for it. Why should our friend go back to 1837, when Dr. Thomas was still in darkness? Why should he have the doctor’s remarks of that date "written in letters of gold on every Christadelphian periodical"; and the doctor’s later utterances concealed away out of sight in common printer’s ink? If Dr. Thomas of 1837, is "our justly esteemed Doctor," what is Dr. Thomas of 1862 when he advised us to withdraw from the fellowship of Dowieism because of its ambiguous attitudes? Is he not likely to have been more "justly esteemable" after 25 more years acquaintance with the Scriptures than when he was "just emerging from the smoke of the great city?" Why should we be asked to "go the whole way with the Doctor" in 1837, and not the whole way with the Doctor in 1862? There is manifestly here a sympathy with the immaturities of partial enlightenment.
The quotation from the Doctor’s answer to David King in 1848 seems to bear out our "open door" friend’s view about non-fellowship, but only seems. Even if it really did so, we could not allow it to have any weight against Paul’s doctrine on the subject. But it does not do what it appears to do.
The situation must be taken into account. There were no ecclesias in existence. There were Campbellite meetings disposed (some of them) to receive the truth. Dr. Thomas was operating in connection with them in the public exhibition of the truth. David King found fault with the Doctor for doing this, and said he ought to have nothing to do with them after practically dis-fellowshipping them by his re-immersion on receiving the hope of Israel. The letter from which the quotation is made is the Doctor’s answer to this. Its essence lies in the remark, that the position was one of "bearing and forbearing with one another in hope that all will come to see the real truth, on which side soever it may be."
The time came when decision on this issue had to be taken, and then, with a new situation, new phases of duty forced themselves on the Doctor’s recognition, and among others, the duty of receiving those only who received the truth. His negative reference to Paul’s Corinthian attitude was not one he afterwards insisted on. As for "the dark spirit of Popery," &c., it is his description of the spirit he recognised in the man to whom he was writing. He could not mean that the spirit of conformity to apostolic precept was of this character, and among other precepts is the one to "withdraw from every brother" who refuses to consent to the wholesome words and works of truth (1 Tim. 6:3–5; 2 Thess. 3:6). But, as before said, Dr. Thomas would not be put forward as an authority for any course that could be shown to be opposed to the teaching of the Word.
Here is bro. Roberts agreeing that bro. Thomas’ words in 1848 seemed to support the doctrine of "non-fellowship" referenced by this 1891 pamphlet calling for an open door. But bro. Roberts is very clear that bro. Thomas went away from this immature position. And further, he pointed out that even if he hadn't, then faithful men would have to put bro. Thomas behind them, and accept the truth of the Scriptures.
That doctrine was called by the brethren of bro Roberts day, the doctrine of non-fellowship. It was a name coined by bro. Thomas, who said he "non-fellowshipped" the reformist movement. "Non-fellowship" was the doctrine that one may be in fellowship with God and Christ (some believed only Christ) but not necessarily the brethren who you recognized as in your fellowship. The doctrine itself is explained in more detail in the section called "John Thomas and Fellowship." Quoted below are the first and fourth paragraphs of an article, as they explain the name of this doctrine. This comment on the doctrine of non-fellowship is from the 1885 Christadelphian, pg. 496-497:
FELLOWSHIP
Brother Haining, of Hurlford, writes:—"An insidious and dangerous theory in relation to fellowship had prevailed for a considerable time previous to the introduction of partial inspiration. This error having shed more light upon its true character, the minds of earnest brethren have become more exercised upon the subject. The doctrine of fellowship is vastly important, yet simple, but a subject simple in itself is often mystified by unskilful handling. Brethren of alleged experience and long standing in the truth have openly declared that they do not fellowship the brethren—only the Father and the Son; and this theory, in a form more or less pronounced, has been endorsed by a considerable section of professors."
"It may be easily perceived by those desiring to see, that partial inspiration is next of kin to this theory of non-fellowship. The two embrace each other, and are hand and glove in many communities at the present moment. They may be described as twin errors, with this difference, that the last-named has considerable precedence in the matter of birth. Had it not been for the preexistence of the non-fellowship theory, the growth of partial inspiration might have been checked; but a more or less ready toleration (if not hearty reception) having been extended to its promulgation, an apostacy from the One Faith is being rapidly developed in this—‘the time of the end,’ which is another sign among the many of the Lord’s early return".
“The family likeness of the two errors is also apparent from the fact, that unlike the one (partial inspiration) is calculated to create suspicion, doubt, distrust, lack of confidence, and consequently indifference toward God , the other (fellowshipping ‘the table’ and not the brethren), does the same in relation to the brethren. Therefore, between the two, the relations which ought to exist through and by means of the Truth as it is in Jesus, has been entirely suspended, so that it only remains for true brethren and sisters everywhere to resist both, ‘steadfast in the faith. The right and safe course to take with the promoters of such errors, is to apply the Apostolic injunction (thought by some extreme) not to receive them into our houses, nor bid them God speed either one way or another. Amidst all this distress, harassment and reproach, incident to an earnest contention for the truth at the present time, it is a consolation to know that it will not be wholly submerged at this crisis. A few at least will be found prepared for the Lord at his coming, by continuing steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.”
Can we not see that the very doctrine the Nicodemites wish for us to embrace is the doctrine of non-fellowship which faithful brethren blamed for the seriousness of the division during the partial inspiration problems? If we go back and read bro. Hainings’ article, we can understand exactly why this theory of fellowship results in these things. If I am responsible for who I fellowship, I must be very concerned and very careful about doctrine. But if my fellowship is with God and Christ, and only with the brethren who walk in white (which I can’t determine anyway) then why is the beliefs of those in my fellowship of any concern to me? Is there error taught in another ecclesia? Its not my concern. After all, am I my brother's keeper?
But most importantly, note that bro. Roberts agreed that the words as written by bro. Thomas in 1848 support this doctrine of non-fellowship. Now bro. Roberts didn’t think that was what bro. Thomas meant. And no matter what was meant in 1848, bro. Roberts was very clear that the actions taken by bro. Thomas towards the Doweites in 1862 represented his true and complete position, and required the same action that he took toward the partial inspirationists of 1885. Note this comment:
"If Dr. Thomas of 1837, is "our justly esteemed Doctor," what is Dr. Thomas of 1862 when he advised us to withdraw from the fellowship of Dowieism because of its ambiguous attitudes?"
And again:
"The time came when decision on this issue had to be taken, and then, with a new situation, new phases of duty forced themselves on the Doctor’s recognition, and among others, the duty of receiving those only who received the truth."
But we don’t simply require bro. Roberts testimony of bro. Thomas’ belief. He, himself, makes the point quite clear in Eureka:
"Paul’s anxiety was that the Corinthian brethren should ‘not have fellowship with demons,’ or deified imaginary ghosts, called ‘immortal souls.’ These demons had a table and a cup, as well as the Lord; and Paul taught that they could not partake of both without sin. The same demons have a table and a cup now, modified, however, in this, that bread cut up into pieces, emblematic of the divisions of antichristendom, is substituted for meats offered to the demons. The table spread by the clergy, and called by them ‘the sacrament,’ is the modern table of the demons. It is the table of those who believe in deified immortal souls, who are the gods of the clerical system. It is Jezebel’s table, at which a saint cannot eat without having fellowship with the demons she funeralizes to glory, which is sin. Her churches are a synagogue of unbaptized ‘miserable sinners,’ as they proclaim themselves to be in their prayers, and consequently, her table cannot be the Lord’s, for his teaching has no place for such there—the miserable patrons of demons belong to Jezebel, not to the spouse of Christ."
In 1848, he broke bread at the table of the divisions of antichristendom. By the time he wrote Eureka, he recognized this as wrong. Is it not clear that if he changed his actions, then the logic that resulted in those actions had to change as well?
Again, dealing with a group of men who ultimately became the Church of God of the Abrahamic Covenant, a group many Central brethren encourage fellowship with today as verified by our Nicodemite brother's own web site, bro. Thomas wrote this concerning what the Christadelphians believe about fellowship with such: From the Christadelphian, 1866 pg 29:
"By some means or other these “brethren in the West” came to agree that the Banner and Harbinger should be regarded as dead after a certain date, and that a periodical with a new name should appear. It was arranged that the partisans of the Banner and those of the Harbinger should convene at Crain’s Grove, Illinois, and organize a joint-stock company to be styled “ The Gospel Publication Society .” The subscription of a share, or ten dollars, constituted a member and voter. The society was to own the new periodical, to elect its editor, and to pay him a salary of 600 dollars per annum. Crain’s Grove is an Adventist neighbourhood; and within six miles of the Grove is an ecclesia of Christadelphians who have no fellowship with these “brethren in the West.” It was thought desirable, however, that their co-operation should be secured, for in those parts they are reputed rich. Now it was known at the meeting that Christadelphians only fellowship those who first believe the gospel and are afterwards immersed; and that for this reason “the brethren in the West” and the Christadelphians are two distinct and separate peoples. Hence, to secure their co-operation, their principle of fellowship had to be endorsed by the society. This was done in the preamble and art. 9 of the Society’s constitution. In the preamble they say, “we obedient believers of the gospel”; and in the article, “ obedient believers of the gospel, who shall take at least one share of stock are constituted members of this society.” The trap being thus laid and duly baited, bro. F. Coffman, to whom the reader will be mainly indebted for Eureka II, who lives about six miles from the Grove, was sent for. But he declined having anything to do with the speculation, “because they were not of the One Body.” Christadelphians do not accept a man’s testimony of himself. Bro. Coffman could not be enticed into the trap by any such specious declaration; because living in the midst of so-called “kingdom-believers,” or “brethren in the West,” and conversing with them from time to time, he knew that the preamble did not express the truth."
So with this clear testimony from bro. Roberts that these 1848 letters did not reflect correctly on bro. Thomas’ ultimate views, and with this clear change from bro. Thomas’ own pen; why should anyone find it strange that bro. Thomas' early and immature views are not included in my booklet? The view held by bro. Thomas at that time which the Nicodemites quotes him, goes beyond what even Central (generally) practices. Most Central brethren see the Scriptural need to come out from the Churches. Bro. Thomas at this time, saw no such need. So the greater question is why are his quotes advanced in trying to show us what the position of the Pioneer brethren truly was, when there are extant writings from bro. Roberts which tells us bro. Thomas went away from this, and which bro. Thomas himself says would be sin to practice?
* * * * *
Concerning # 2, we find that the idea of Christ placed in fellowship with Belial by us fellowshipping error is condemned in the Christadelphian for 1892! This very idea advanced by our Nicodemite brother was condemned in the pages of the Christadelphian in the days of bro. Roberts. And of special note is the fact that the Nicodemites cannot find their argument ever made in the pages of the Christadelphian Magazine. One might expect, if their ideas are the ideas of early Christadelphians, than we might find some reference to them there. Instead, we find this very idea condemned. In 1891, the same pamphleteer we referenced earlier, advanced all the same notions that Nicodemites now project, but with this difference. The pamphleteer condemned the practices of the Christadelphians of his age, while Nicodemites seem to believe that their ideas are the status quo for the pioneer brethren.
Look how similar these condemned ideas are to what is advanced today. I will reassemble the sentences which are broken up in the Christadelphian Magazine, so we can see how the pamphlet originally read, and recognize them as the Nicodemite's argument.
"But, although we are all sinners, yet "we have fellowship with the Father and the Son." Does our fellowship of them involve them in our wickedness? If responsibility for evil is incurred in the case of our brethren, it is also incurred in the cases of the Father and the Son, and that cannot be put negatively." Chdn. 1892, pg 100.
Can we not see that this is the same argument? If we incur responsibility in the case of our brethren, and if we are in fellowship with the Father and the Son, then the Father and Son also incur the same responsibility! In other words, we put the Father and Son in fellowship with evil. And note that he says that this cannot be put negatively–which means, as our Nicodemite brother keeps telling us, this cannot be denied! Only it was denied in the days of bro. Roberts, as we do today.
Now look at the response that this idea received in the pages of the Christadelphian. The pamphleteer was told:
"Are you not reducing God and Christ to your own level? Have you never read that the One forgives through the mediumship of the other? Have you omitted to read the next verse to the one you quote from 1 John 1.?—"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins." Bearing this in mind, can you not see that we have fellowship with the Father and Son not as sinners but as children "cleansed from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9), and that therefore, there is no sin for the Father and Son to be involved in, Without this forgiveness, there is no fellowship, and that man is not forgiven who unrepentantly continues in sin and whose fellowship therefore we cannot knowingly entertain without separating ourselves from the fellowship of Father and Son."
Now I don’t know if the reasoning of the brother who condemns his idea is accepted or not by the Nicodemites. I leave that for the present time. But the point I do wish to make is that this idea of the transference of evil from us to Christ, was not accepted in the pages of the Christadelphian in the days of bro. Roberts, and in fact was boldly denied!
Further, the pamphleteer advancing these ideas makes observations even more telling. He writes:
"It is now nearly two years since I came to the conclusion that our understanding of the doctrine of fellowship was radically unsound, and since that time, I have been looking for some brother to come forward and instruct us more perfectly upon this subject."
In other words, the pamphleteer is longing for a Nicodemite brother. He is longing for someone to come forth and make his arguments against the writings of bro. Roberts. So are we. You see, this brother is advancing modern Nicodemite ideas as new ideas among Christadelphians, because he contends that existing ideas among the Christadelphians are unsound. Let us look further and see what he considered the existing unsound ideas to be. The brother writes of the unsound ideas:
"It is usually believed that in this act of fellowship we bid God-speed to all with whom we partake of the sacrificial emblems. It is usually believed that we involve ourselves in the responsibility of errors of belief that may be held by them or unrighteous conduct that they may practise. And we have refused to break bread with brethren, whose faith we know to be identically our own, because they are not prepared to disconnect themselves from others who hold an error of belief upon some point or other."
Note that what this pamphleteer is criticizing as existing in his time (1891), is the modern Berean position. This brother condemns this, but he does recognize it as the established position of the Christadelphian magazine over the last 17 years. So what was the Christadelphian’s answer to the charge that the Christadelphians practiced such things?.
"True, we do so believe, and when you give reasons for believing otherwise, we will deal with such and give you testimony to support our belief."
It is hard to see how the point could be made any plainer. The idea that when we fellowship each other, if any is unfit we implicate God and Christ in the fellowship of error, was not an idea of the early Christadelphians, and was condemned by them as based upon a false premise. But what was positively affirmed, was that we must separate ourselves from brethren who are not prepared to disconnect themselves from others who hold an error of belief, or we involve ourselves in responsibility for the error.
Curiously, another man who took up the pen to condemn the ideas advanced by this 1891 pamphleteer was bro. J. J. Andrew. Only, as he liked the mechanical working out of things (which ultimately led to serious disorder in the brotherhood) he actually accepted the mechanical premise of the Nicodemites argument, making a different construction of its results. He wrote:
"Thus is it with those who have been the medium for providing the "lamp" of the inspired Word. And such as give heed to it, in all its parts, "walk in the light as God is in the light," and "have fellowship" first with the Father and His Son and then with one another. When any of the latter injure God’s "lamp," by mixing with it an element of human darkness, their fellowship with Him is impaired, or suspended, according to the nature of the damage done; and then it becomes a duty on the part of those who desire to live in the full light of the Spirit’s "lamp" to separate from them that they too may not be in jeopardy of being deprived of fellowship with the Father and the Son." (Chdn. 1886, pg. 127)
So bro. Andrew, who liked such mechanical constructions, agreed with the Nicodemites logic, but saw the matter differently. Nicodemites say that when we fellowship error, which admittedly we do when problems arise for a period of time till the matter is faithfully handled, that God and Christ are then in fellowship with that error. Bro. Andrew says no, at this time our fellowship with God and Christ is impaired or suspended till the matter is resolved. I don’t agree with either. But the point is, that the Nicodemites' ideas of involving God and Christ in fellowship with error, are condemned in the early Christadelphian magazine.
But of course we do not imagine such a mechanical interpretation to the doctrine of fellowship. There are no such necessary lines between who we fellowship, and their relationship to God and Christ. Who we fellowship, or who we do not fellowship, has no impact on who is in fellowship with God and Christ. We view the doctrine of fellowship as a series of commands, which leads us to the end of being in fellowship with Christ. Our obedience in fellowship one with another, is a means to an end, but not the end itself.
A person must be walking in the light to be in fellowship with Christ. Walking in light, as regards the doctrine of fellowship, requires doing certain things such as are outlined in my booklet. The decisions we make for ourselves will impact our fellowship with Christ, but do nothing to impact Christ. Nothing we can do will put Christ in fellowship with Belial.
When error arises in the ecclesia, we do continue to fellowship with the errorist for a period of time. Are we actually in fellowship with them, at a time in which their doctrine is unrelentingly attacked? Personally, I think we are. I think it is the divine command to behave in that way. Therefore we are also in fellowship with Christ at the time. The errorist, however, is not. Bro. Thomas thought that the errorist was not in fellowship with us at that time, though he would continue in our breaking of bread. I have no trouble with either view, but think that the love and care we put forth to regain the errorist is fellowship. But I'll leave that question for others.
The amount of time for this state to continue is left to our best judgment as we go through the processes described in Matt. 18. In doing this, we are obedient to divine command, and we are walking in light and in fellowship with Christ, while we patiently and lovingly deal with the problem. We are required to follow these procedures, but that doesn’t put Christ in fellowship with the errorist. The errorist is not walking in light, and therefore can have no fellowship with Christ. The errorist may be healed by the faithful action of the ecclesia, or he may reject sound words, and leave the ecclesia. How the faithful brethren deal with the problem determines whether we continue to walk in the light.
We really do not disagree with our Nicodemite friends in these exceptional conditions. Our disagreement is when the errorist is permitted a legitimate seat in the ecclesia. What cannot happen in fellowship, is that the errorist cannot be allowed to remain in a peaceful position where he is permitted to contaminate the brotherhood. That is where we take issue with the Nicodemites. And that brings us to the next error of or our Nicodemite brother, which is his comments about purity.
* * * * *
Point #3. The wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable. This sums up the reason for purity of belief in fellowship. The ecclesia is not the place for constant strife. It is for the worship and growth of saints in peace. Constant strife wears down the brethren. We are not constituted for it. Strife is a challenge, brought by God to try mature men of age and understanding, like Job and Daniel. It is not for the body general. Bro. Roberts makes this point very clearly:
Chdn. 1867, pg. 270 Now, by what means shall a community, based on the truth, preserve the truth in purity in its midst? Obviously by the means indicated by Paul and John, that is, by exacting of all who are in it an implicit adherence to the things, facts, principles, points, tenets, or whatever else they may be called, which go to make up the truth in its entirety, and by refusing to associate with those who oppose or refuse to endorse any of those elements. Some recommend, in opposition to this, the employment or argument with those who may be in error. As a preliminary process, common wisdom and humanity would dictate this course; but if an ecclesia is to go no further than argument, how could its existence continue? An effort would, doubtless, be put forth to reclaim those who are in error; but, where those efforts fail, dissociation by withdrawal is natural and inevitable. The ecclesia is not a place for argument; it is for fellowship in agreement. When a man requires to be argued with, his natural place is outside, and if he will not go outside, separation must be enforced by withdrawal on the part of the rest. The adoption of this policy may be oftentimes hurtful to amicable feeling, but this must not deter from faithfulness; Christ distinctly foretold that the result of his operations in the world would be to sow division, causing father to separate from son, mother from daughter, and the closest of friends to divide. Therefore, the occurrence of painful violations of friendship need not surprise, or cause uneasiness to, devout minds, as if something were happening contrary to the mind of Christ. Division is the inevitable concomitant of an uncompromising adherence to the truth. Peace purchased at the cost of compromise is doubly dangerous. The truth is the standard, and must alone be allowed to rule. All doubts ought to be solved in its favour. This is the principle of action to which study will ultimately lead. The act of separation is not an act of judgment against those from whom we may separate. It is an act of self-vindication; an act by which we discharge a duty and wash our hands of evil.
There are only two ways to obtain peace in the ecclesia. The first is to withdraw from error, as bro. Roberts advised above. The second way is to tolerate error and the errorists. Bro. H. P. Mansfield was a prominent Nicodemite, and firmly believed he had to remain in what he perceived to be the body. He gives us an example of how you must compromise your position, to accommodate error, in his diary. We read this concerning bro. Mansfield's visit with a Central "Partial Atonement" teacher, bro. Richard Stone:
Friday, 8th July, 1960
There was not so much luxury about the Stone's home. The three of us were placed in a small bedroom that contrasted somewhat with the lavish conditions we were beginning to accept as a due part of life!
Friday, July 8th, 1960 Next morning we met Sis. Stone, whom we had not seen the night before. We soon put her at her ease, and with the boys helping in the kitchen, and brewing the tea, we all felt comfortable with each other.
Bro. Stone had taken the day off in order to have a chat. He tackled me upon the sacrifice of Christ. He takes the stand adopted by the late Bro. Fry that Christ died only for himself in the sense that the sins of his fellows were imputed to him. I told him, as is a fact, that his teaching would be looked upon as clean-flesh in Australia. He was shocked at this. I assured him that it was so, and then proceeded to question him as to why the altar had to be cleansed by blood before it could be used, why the tabernacle, and holy vessels, had so to be cleansed? These were holy things, designed only for worship, yet accounted as unclean, and unfit for proper use until ceremoniously cleansed. He found it difficult to answer my questions, and I pointed out that these things had been made up by a sinful people, and that defilement was contagious. Therefore, though having committed no actual sin, they were accounted unclean because of their contact and association with that which is unclean. So with the Lord Jesus. He had inherited the results of sin, though himself was innocent of sin. Those results are defiling, and from these he had to be cleansed. This could only be done through death - by destroying the defilement he had inherited. His resurrection was to a new way of life, free from all defilement; therefore death was absolutely necessary. He had to die for himself, and by his own redemption, he redeemed those "in him." Only those "in him" can be redeemed, and as we are "in him" surely the defilement of the multitudinous Christ is very real.
As we discussed together the beautiful doctrines associated with the atonement, Bro. Richard became more at ease, and he entered freely into our discourse. When he found that we were prepared to openly speak concerning these matters without condemning him or charging him with "clean flesh," he entered more fully into them, and a most interesting and helpful conversation followed. He took many notes upon the points we raised.
So if your conscience will allow you to somehow calmly discuss error with the errorist in your fellowship, not charging them with error; you can have peace. The "bro. Fry" that bro. Mansfield references was bro. Harry Fry, who was withdrawn from for his views on the Nature and sacrifice of Christ, in the days of bro. Roberts. But bro. Mansfield is quite willing to exist side by side with the same views bro. Roberts would not tolerate. Bro. Mansfield was quite willing to allow bro. Stone to teach his views, and destroy the salvation of others. That is a huge responsibility that he assumed. If you are willing to pay this price, and take this responsibility; then you can have peace. If you are willing to compromise the truth with error, allow error its position side by side with the truth, then you can have "peace." It always has been that way, and it will always be that way. Why? Because error instinctively knows it will ultimately win, and if you will allow him access to your body, he will defeat you. The time in which we live belongs to the world, and error is of the world. Error and the world, has every advantage. It knows that if it is given its place to stand among the saints, it will pick at the young, and the new to the truth to corrupt them. It will exploit those sad conflicts that arise due to our fleshly weaknesses and pride, blowing up little things into giant schisms. It will seize upon every opening to take us away from the Truth of the gospel, because that is what the world does! That is the underlying need for purity in the fellowship. It is as simple as Paul's council to the Corinthians:
1 Cor 5:6-7 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
Bro. Mansfield died, and out of his own camp arose one, bro. John Martin, who undertook to destroy his work. And because error was already permitted it's accepted seat in the Central camp, he had a ready made audience to which he could make his appeal. The leaven does leaven the lump. We see this going on today. Now the strength of error is so strong, that it's aggression is already showing signs of wanting to throw out the truth. Diotrophes eventually comes to a position of authority in the Church, where he will throw out the truth. Nicodemus will only be permitted his seat, providing he refuses to testify against Diotrophes and Ephraim. Its why "stay and fight" is actually "stay and permit." There could be no peace, no possibility of conducting a meeting, if Nicodemus was actually fighting. But he doesn't fight. If he did, he would solve the problem.
But this is not new. 26 years ago, I was invited to a Central special meeting by a few Central brethren of a local ecclesia. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the teachings of bro. Richard Stone as related to the Nature and Sacrifice of Christ. I elected to go, but was met at the door by "sis. Diotrophes" who told me I had no business being there. I thanked her for her concern for me (which I feel sure she neither understood, nor intended ) but took my place and sat down. But the ecclesia had appointed bro. Diotrophes to chair the meeting. And while the Berean Magazine was held up and thrown down as error by the presiding brother, bro. Diotrophes; (the magazine at that time was running the articles which later became the booklet "Purifying of the Heavenly") I ended up sitting through the meeting with my hand up, though never to be called upon by bro. Diotrophes.
And a few months later, bro. Ellis Higham was asked to present his arguments against bro. Stone to a committee set up to examine the concerns of a number of Central brethren. Bro. Higham became quite ill in the week leading up to the meeting, and requested to that committee that I should be allowed to make his presentation for him. But that committed had chosen another bro. Diotrophes as their chair, and he made it quite clear that I would not even be permitted into the building where there matter was to be discussed. So I have always known that Diotrophes, who refuses to hear those from the Apostolic Fellowship, and casts out of the ecclesia those who would, was alive and well. Nicodemite websites which reference his modern actions against the Nicodemites who maintain the truth are merely chronicling his growth and development, not showing us anything new.
This is why separation from error is fundamental to the doctrine of fellowship. There is no way that the truth could be preserved for our generation, let alone the next without this vital work of keeping error out of the fold. This is bro. Roberts evaluation (and quoted in a lecture on fellowship by a wonderful Nicodemite brother, John Uhlman, as recently as 1972):
Chdn 1885 pg 120-121 "At last, the question would be asked, Why this narrow basis of a defined faith at all? Why insist upon the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus as the basis of fellowship? Why stand apart from the pleasant, popular communions? Why not leave all such questions to individual conviction and individual rights? By the time this point was reached, the whole edifice of apostolic faith and practice, as recovered in this nineteenth century by unreserved submission to the authority of the scriptures, would be in ruins."
And again by bro. Roberts:
Chdn 1885, pg 183-184 It ought not to be difficult for men of ordinary discernment to see the truth of the matter. Why do we stand apart from the churches and chapels? Is it not because we recognise that the truth, mutually received, is the basis of association in Christ? If this is a right view (and who will doubt it that is acquainted with apostolic writings?) then it is inconsistent to connive at any denial of the truth in our midst. By Paul’s description, the ecclesia is “the pillar and ground of the truth”—that which gives it standing-ground and support in the midst of men. But if we connive at the denial of it in one item, the denial will spread to other items as time goes on, and we shall soon cease to possess the character that gives an ecclesia any scriptural value or life. The truth will soon be dead in our midst, and we shall lose all reason for standing apart from the religious organisations around us to which it would be so much more convenient to belong
Your see, my Nicodemite brethren, had bro. Roberts behaved as you do, had he allowed the errorist among the brethren in his day, the truth would have fallen to ruins, and most of you never would have found it! That is what you are leaving for your legacy. You are not saving others by staying among them and fighting. Your staying among them convinces them that you have no conviction in the things you teach, and you make it easier for the wolf, not harder. He stays and breaks bread with the sheep at the Bible schools, while you scurry down the mountain, away from him. He discredits you in your absence, pointing out that he hasn't run, you have. Such a mess!
* * * * *
Two Scriptural references are advanced to indicate that purity of the ecclesia is not to be insisted upon. First, it is the epistle of Paul which references various errors in the ecclesia, and secondly, it is the letters to Revelation. Of the latter, please examine bro. Thomas and the Apocalypse, to see that the Apostle's fellowship had no fellowship with the Synagogue of the Satan. As for the former, I have already referenced bro. Roberts response to bro. Thomas Williams about the Corinthians. But I would add a few thoughts to things. These letters are advanced to suggest that the ecclesias had a multitude of continuous problems. This idea is inferred, not proven. The epistles, in some cases, were written to address specific problems in an ecclesia. As bro. Thomas points out, the ecclesias during the Apostolic State, did obey the Apostles and resolved the problem. There is internal evidence that this was the case in the letters to the Corinthians. From prophesy, we know that was the case in the rest of the ecclesias during the Apostolic State.
Our Nicodemite brethren imply the opposite. They seem to think that the ecclesias remained in the condition the Apostles complained of. There is no proof that this was the case, and it goes directly against the writings of bro. Thomas writing in Eureka. But considering the writings of bro. Thomas, he indicates that the time of the Apostolic State of the ecclesias was about 40 years. All the Epistles, except the last two letters of John (according to bro. Thomas) were written in these times. So there were four errors serious enough to require direct specific intervention by Paul, in all the Apostolic ecclesias during 40 years. There was the adulterous condition tolerated in Corinth, the denial of the resurrection in Corinth, the work of the Judaizers in Galatia, the denial of the resurrection in Ephesus, (and this appears to have already been resolved prior to Paul's writings) I'd say that they had a much purer state of doctrine for fellowship, than we will ever see.
* * * * *
#4 Withdrawal and Excommunicate.
The fourth and final error of our Nicodemite brethren comes from misunderstanding these two terms. Our Nicodemite brethren have drawn a distinction between withdrawal, and excommunication which doesn't exist. They argue that if we refuse to admit the errorist in any of our ecclesias we have "excommunicated" him, while if we permit him to go to someone else's ecclesia; then he has merely been withdrawn from. This definition can never be found in any of the writings of the pioneer brethren.
The difference between these two terms is not to be understood by the errorist, for to him, the result will appear to be the same. The difference is in the mind of the true brother. To excommunicate comes from an arrogance derived from Diotrophes who eventually comes to believe that he has the power and authority on earth, to decide things reserved by Christ to himself. He ultimately comes to believe that he can "kick out" those who will not embrace his Ephraimitish beliefs.
To "withdraw" is to humbly step aside from a doctrine and those brethren who support it, casting no judgment on the matter whatsoever as to what Christ will think at his coming. It is simply stating that we have no desire to be implicated with that doctrine.
Here is bro. Roberts in the Ecclesial Guide making the point that to the errorist, the action (withdrawal and excommunication) appears to be the same thing:
"Withdrawal, too, when it comes (it must be noted), is not expulsion. It is the apostolic form of separation which, though practically equivalent to expulsion in its effects on the separated, is more in harmony with the spirit enjoined by Christ upon his house than the form in vogue among professing bodies of all sorts. Withdrawal means that those withdrawing do modestly and sorrowfully step aside from the offender for fear of implication in his offence. Expulsion means thrusting out, which is a different thing, and implies and generates the arrogant attitude of ecclesiastical excommunication. the careful preservation of right forms in these things is a help to the preservation of the right spirit.
We can see from this that the effects, according to bro. Roberts of withdrawal and excommunication on the one being separated, is the same, identical effect. The reason for the differentication is not because the errorist will be treated differently, but to keep the believer from generating into an attitude of arrogance, believing they have some control over who will be and will not be accepted in the kingdom. Again, this shows that the teachings of the Nicodemites is not the teachings of bro. Roberts.
Bro. Roberts, following the "Partial Inspiration Division" when the doctrine of fellowship was very much under attack, wrote an extensive article on withdrawal. He was being accused of many things such as "being Diotrophes" "cutting off the brethren" "the spirit of Popery" and of disobeying the divine precept to "Judge not and you shall not be judged."
He answered these charges exactly the same as we do. We don't judge anyone but ourselves. We stand aside without casting judgment on anyone but ourselves, deciding for ourselves, and judging that for ourselves, we do not wish to be involved in some doctrine which we do not believe. We exercise no different control of ourselves than do our Central brethren exercise, when they separate from the world. Bro. Roberts wrote directly to these points in that article:
Chdn 1891 pg 149 "...The apostolic rule is to "withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly" and from those who teach heresy-without reference to the question of what the Lord may finally think of them. And this rule is defensive in its bearing: not offensive. It means that we are not to be partakers of other men's sins. John lays down the axiom that he that receives the holder of wrong doctrine or practice partakes of his evil deeds.
"In withdrawing, we wash our own hands. We leave to God those whom we withdraw from. We are not authorized to judge or condemn them....
"The time for withdrawal is when men drift into unscriptural attitudes of faith or practice. These we note and separate ourselves from, without reference to the question of whether the offenders can be saved, which we cannot decide. And the withdrawal is not putting them out but going out ourselves , as the term implies. We simply go away, saying we cannot be responsible. The attitude prescribed by this “basis” would place the ecclesia in a chair of authority, with power of excommunication, arrogating the right to “cut off” or say the excommunicated cannot be saved.
"Faithful men are more truly modest, while more uncompromising towards departure from the faith than the sentiments that inspire this basis. Faithful men say, “we have no power to cut off: Christ will do that. But we have power to withdraw; and this we will do with however much reluctance and pain, when the Word of God and its obligations are tampered with by whomsoever.” We will exercise this liberty unhampered by any assumptions as to the position of those who have technically “responded to the Gospel call.” The basis declares that all such are “in union and fellowship with the Father.” This is not true. There were many in the apostolic age who had “obeyed the Gospel call,” whom the Apostles repudiated as “enemies of the cross of Christ” ( Phil. 3:18 )—spots in their feasts of charity ( Jude 12 ); who claimed to be Jews but were not, but lied ( Rev. 3:9 ).
"It is a fundamental principle as to the operations of the gospel, that “many are called but few are chosen,” and that “all are not Israel that are of Israel.” This is a principle which we cannot apply, and which we are not called upon to apply. We do not know who will be chosen of those who have been called. We have nothing to do with saying who will and who will not be saved, as regards profession of the truth. The thing we have to do is to take care of our own standing in relation to the prevailing corruptions. We refuse to be implicated in these, while entertaining the very best wishes concerning all men. We mingle with Bible charity the most decisive resolution not to be compromised by any class of men, whether they have gone through “the waters of baptism” or no."
And again:
Chdn 1885 pg 120-121 "Withdrawal from fellowship does not judge those we leave behind. It only washes our hands, and preserves the work of God so far as our action is concerned. We do not judge sceptics, nor Roman Catholics, nor Episcopalians, nor Dissenters of all hues, because we stand apart from them. We judge ourselves. We say we cannot be implicated in their unfaithfulness to divine obligations, and in the consequent peril to which they expose divine interests ."
And again:
Chdn. 1885, pg. 183-184 It is easy to call by a bad name this insisting on the purity of the faith of Christ as the foundation. With this, men striving for the few remaining days to be faithful, must be prepared to put up. The bad names do not alter things, though they may hurt our feelings. Those who contend earnestly for a pure apostolic foundation do not “put men away from the table of the Lord.” They do not “excommunicate.” They are guilty of no Papal arrogance or assumption. They simply refuse to be implicated in an unsound position. They simply yield to the apostolic guidance which forbids them to receive any who bring not with them the doctrine of Christ; and which tells them that if they act otherwise, they make themselves responsible for the unscriptural principles involved in the case, whatever they may be.
This is the true meaning of withdrawal. Keeping a correct understanding on this, also helps us deal lovingly with brethren from other fellowships. If we believe one thing, and they believe another in vital matters; we cannot fellowship each other as a matter of our personal conscience. But we respect their decision, just as we ask them to respect ours. We can then appeal to one another in love for now, understanding that Christ will judge these things later. This is especially true among the "Antipas" brethren who are separated from each other, but also of our Nicodemite brethren in Central. There is no reason to get hostile or venomous over these things. Just figure out what the Scriptures teach, do your best to personally conform to these things, and be satisfied that you have done so, while patiently await the return of Christ.
It is only Diotrophes who must attack us on a judgmental and personal basis. He has to do so, because his teachings will not withstand the light of the Gospel. That is why he wants to change the term from the harmless "withdrawal," to the more arrogant "excommunicate." It is he that craves the power to judge for Christ, and kick out those he doesn't approve. We very much urge our Nicodemite brethren to not only separate from Diotrophes, Ephraim, Balac and Jezebel; but also not to mimic their behavior while amongst them. The rules for fellowship urged on the brotherhood in opposition to the teaching of bro. Roberts by those from whom he had withdrawn demonstrates this principle. Of these ideas bro. Roberts wrote:
Chdn 1891 pg 149 "It [an appeal to the brethren bro. Roberts is examining] formulates an impossible rule of withdrawal, which turns the ecclesia into a judgment seat of the Papistical order...
"...But this document lays it down that we must not withdraw, unless we are prepared to maintain that the cause of withdrawal will make salvation impossible. This would erect an ecclesia into a spiritual judicature, deciding questions which the Lord has reserved for himself.
"The document proposes 'union with all who have not forfeited their right to the fully assured salvation.' How can such rule be carried out? How can we know who have and who have not forfeited the said right? It is calling upon us to pronounce on a matter beyond our jurisdiction, and that has been placed beyond it by the express command to 'judge not,' 'condemn not.'"
This is Diotrophes' rules for fellowship. And of course, once error has been let in, and once it becomes the dominant force, the Diotrophes will reserve to himself who will be saved and who will not, and he will cast the Antipas from his midst!
