John Thomas and Fellowship
A recent effort has been made by some Central brethren to claim that bro. Thomas was in harmony with them in their policy of loose fellowship. They have published some of his very early writings on the subject which actually are loser than their fellowship stand. Then, some of his later writings are advanced, tied with those earlier writings in such a manner as to suggest that even while he was writing opposite things, he still believed the things that he had written in those most early days of the Truth, before the ecclesias were formed.
We marvel that these early writings of bro. Thomas are now being advanced in Central, where so many have worked so hard to discredit the sound foundation laid by bro. Thomas on so many topics. When we appeal to bro. Thomas' writings in support of doctrines like the nature and sacrifice of Christ, pointing out his sound logic that "Sin is a synonym for human nature" or "sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus, unless it existed there:" there is an apostate class of brethren who nearly scream at us that we are involved in "Pioneer Worship" as they term it. Yet now these same brethren find a few sentences which they think agree with them, and they themselves published these things from the housetops. Four different Central websites, and one Unamended web site, now carry some form of reference (all of them with wrong page numbers, obviously copied from the same source, belying their true lack of interest) to the earliest writings of bro. Thomas on fellowship.
Do these modern brethren really believe they have found some long hidden writings which now justify their positions, and prove that their position is the foundation position of Christadelphians all along? They haven't! All who read the pioneer writings have known about these sections. They were even briefly advanced and then rejected as opposed to Christadelphian teaching, in the lifetime of bro. Roberts. Frankly, that these quotes could gain such popularity recently is only possible because Central brethren have ceased to read the pioneer writings.
There are three quotes from the 1851 Herald which are being advanced as support of both the Central position in general, and these quotes are also being used by the Central Nicodemite position (which does not consider itself in fellowship with all in Central.) So the errorists of Central use these quotes against the Nicodemites of Central who will not fellowship with them, who in turn use these quotes against us. One of them is advice given in 1851, and two of them are a recounting of events which took place in 1848, on his first speaking tour following his article "Confessions and Abjurations" and his renouncing of all held dear by Christendom.
The first two quotes by bro. Thomas, are related to his "non-fellowshipping" of the reformists in 1847. Bro. Thomas was baptized for the final time in 1847, immediately upon the writings of "Confessions and Abjurations." Following this, he traveled to Britain in 1848 to lecture there on the truth which he had uncovered from the darkness that make up the world’s religions. Bro. Thomas’ views on fellowship at this time, were such that he continued to fellowship with the Church of Christ (sometimes called Campbellites, or the Disciples.) In the United States, he 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. He was also very interested to continue to remain associated with these congregations, in an effort to preach the gospel to them.
He had upset many of the ruling class among the Campbellites, with "Confessions and Abjurations." He squarely attacked the new clergy being set up by them. These men seized on "Confessions and Abjurations" to reason that bro. Thomas had disfellowshipped the Campbellites, and therefore, that the Campbellites should not make their Churches available to bro. Thomas. But many of the common members of the Campbellites were anxious to hear him.
When he arrived in England in 1848, he was interviewed by David King, who directly asked him if he had disfellowshipped the Disciples in the US, or if any had disfellowshipped him. He answered that he had not, which was bro. Thomas' perception of the case. He hadn't disfellowshipped them. He had non-fellowshipped them, though apparently he wasn't real clear on this point to David King..
This doctrine of "non-fellowship" states that fellowship is between God, Christ and an individual. The individual has no authority to include or exclude individuals in fellowship. If the individual next to us at Memorial meeting is in fellowship with Christ, then we are in fellowship with him. If not, then we are not. We can exercise no control. Therefore, who we break bread with, and what meeting we attend has no effect on fellowship. This is the teaching, as we shall see, bro. Thomas himself goes away from, but it the one our Nicodemite brethren cling to, in various forms.
Following his meeting with David King, bro. Thomas then lectured in a few Campbellite halls, till some of the new developing clergy men of Campbellism advanced the copies of "Confessions and Abjurations" to argue that this document "proved" that he had disfellowshipped the Campbellites, and that bro. Thomas was only lecturing with the purpose of dividing the Campbellite churches. This led, ultimately, to his being disfellowshipped by the Church of Christ. But even after the Campbellite churches were closed to him, bro. Thomas went to a Church of Christ convention in Glasgow, as a representative of the Lincoln Church of Christ in England, and as their representative, he now claimed to be in fellowship with them.
This situation in England caused the Campbellites to accuse bro. Thomas of a falsehood. They reasoned that he in fact had disfellowshipped the Campbellites with "Confessions and Abjurations" and was deceitfully seeking a building to preach his new gospel in, in order to divide them. Bro. Thomas later defended this fellowship action of 1848, in his magazine of 1851.
Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, 1851, pg. 82: We do not remember if Mr. Black invited us to speak at his place. A few days after, however, we received a note from Mr. King, dated July 6, 1948, requesting us to meet him at Mr. Black’s the next day at half-past three; and stating that "in the event of our not being able to do so, he would thank us to send him a line appointing time and place, as they deemed some conversation requisite before the next First Day." We accordingly went at the time appointed, and had an interview with Messrs. Black and King, and a third person whose name we forget. The object they had in view in inviting us to this conference, as stated by Mr. King in a letter to the Gospel Banner, was to inquire "whether we, when in the States, refused to fellowship those christians who had not been baptized while possessing those opinions which we held." He meant by this to inquire whether we refused to fellowship those professors called Campbellites, who when they were immersed were ignorant or faithless of the Hope of Israel or kingdom of God as expounded by us. To this inquiry we answered, that we did not refuse; which is well known by every one to be the fact. We do not feel that we are called upon to do more than testify to and for the truth. We have not been appointed a judge in these matters by God or men; therefore whatever we may think of the christianity of persons called Reformers and Baptists, we feel at liberty only to show them the position they occupy in relation to the truth, and neither to refuse nor admit them into the fellowship of God. This is beyond our jurisdiction. We believe that God has admitted us into this fellowship through faith in the gospel of the kingdom in the name of Jesus. Having obeyed this gospel by immersion into the name of the Holy Ones, and continuing to walk in the truth, we have "fellowship with the Father and his son Jesus Christ," and the apostles of the Lord. If others do this, then "we have fellowship one with another," not else. We do not regard the breaking of bread at the same table as a test of fellowship, but the walking in the light as God is in the light." We leave others, such as Messrs. Campbell , Wallis, and King, to cast men out of fellowship; for our own part we pass not sentence, whatever we may think the party may deserve, "until the Lord come." We show what the truth is, where it condemns and justifies, and leave the application to particular cases to the individuals themselves. We are not lords over men’s consciences; when these become sufficiently enlightened they will not rest until they do the truth, and then all will work well. That we do not "refuse" those who are immersed on Campbellite and Baptist principles, is manifest from the fact that the churches we visit are principally composed of such. We desire to enlighten and save them, not to anathematize and proscribe them, while at the same time we testify that no immersion is worth a stiver which is not predicated on faith in the things of the kingdom and the name of Jesus." [End Quote: Our Underlining]
Note the following points from bro. Thomas' pen in 1848-1851.
1). Bro. Thomas was asked directly by the Campbellite leaders whether or not he refused to fellowship Campbellites. He answered that he did not refuse them, neither did he refuse Baptists or other reformers. He felt that fellowship belonged to God, and he had no authority to include or exclude.
2) Bro. Thomas says he was not appointed by God to judge whether or not he could exclude Campbellite, Baptists, and other Reformers.
3). Bro. Thomas taught that he does not regard breaking of bread at the same table to be a test of fellowship.
4). Bro. Thomas affirmed that the meetings he visited (and the subject was refusing fellowship) are principally made up of Reformers, Baptists, and Campbellites, and he believed that it was not his position to exclude any of them.
5). Bro. Thomas affirms that he breaks bread and meets with individuals, to whom he testified that their immersion was not worth a stiver.
6). And finally, bro. Thomas said that it was his intention to behave this way "until the Lord come."
There is more that we could quote to show that bro. Thomas had no problem in associating for breaking of bread with most any man who showed up at the same church as he did, in 1848, but this should suffice to show bro. Thomas' mind at that time. In some of his writings, he affirms he breaks bread with congregations where 100% of the individuals believe in the immortality of the soul. (This doctrine was particularly singled out by the Campbellites for their attacks on bro. Thomas, since he had called the doctrine "a damnable heresy" in "Confessions and Abjurations.") Clearly, bro. Thomas, in 1848, did not believe that his salvation was at all effected by who he broke bread with.
The first thing to note is that no Christadelphian body today, practices this belief as set forth by bro. Thomas. No ecclesia in any fellowship that we are aware of will freely fellowship any Church of Christ, Baptist, or Reformer of any stripe who shows up Sunday morning. No Christadelphian that we are aware of, will attend a local Church of Christ, Baptist, or other reformer meetings, till they are disfellowshipped by them. So the thing that must be clear is that no Christadelphian group truly identifies with these early teachings of bro. Thomas.
The second point is found if we briefly consider bro. Thomas' comments about a convention in Glasgow in 1948 that he attended on behalf of the Church of Christ at Lincoln even after he had been disfellowshipped by the Campbellites. Bro. Thomas had understood that he was going to be singled out for condemnation by this assembly. He was therefore anxious to go to defend his name and his teaching against these attacks. The Campbellite meeting in Lincoln, England, then appointed him as their designate to this conference. Here is bro. Thomas' account of this event:
Bro. Thomas' writings as recorded in "Life and Works of Dr. Thomas. "When the church at Lincoln was called, we presented its letter, which was received. The presentation of letters being over for the night, they were read in the same order. The Lincoln letter was also read, when a delegate and 'evangelist' arose, and moved that Dr. Thomas be refused a seat among them. This was cordially seconded by another. The motion was based upon the allegation that we were not a member of any reformation church in Britain. This objection was pre-eminently sectarian. One would have expected that a convention of 'apostolic or primitive Christians' would have taken higher ground than this, and have objected to us on the plea that we were not a member of Christ's body mystical. Without examining the legality of the baptism of the Lincoln church, they had become of the same faith with us, and therefore, as stated in their letter, we were in fellowship with them in this matter; whether we and the church were recognised by the Invisible as joint members of the 'one body,' is quite another question : for all conventional purposes we were members of their society, and recognised as such officially by their elder. We objected to their motion that our membership with the believers at Lincoln was no affair of theirs. This was an item they could not consider, having no jurisdiction in the case. It belonged exclusively to them at Lincoln. The real question before them was whether the church there was to be recognised as 'a reformation church,' or not; if they acknowledged it, and they had done so by officially inscribing it upon their list of churches, then no delegate of a sister church, be he 'evangelist' or layman, nor a plurality of delegates, had any right to say that they should not be represented there. The Lincoln church was in fellowship with all the 'reformation churches' in Britain. Its elder was unexceptionable in standing and character; had been one of their 'evangelists,' having surrendered for the purpose an endowment among the Baptists, but had been superseded by the management of Mr. Wallis.
Here bro. Thomas acknowledges that he is in fellowship with the Campbellites in Lincoln, but he questioned whether or not Deity would consider him and Lincoln Church of Christ both of the one body. This really explains his fellowship position at the time. He could be in fellowship recognized by men, while he knew that fellowship was not possibly recognized by God.
Also, note his conclusion. He says that he is in fellowship with Lincoln, and Lincoln is in fellowship with all the Churches of the reformation. There is an important observation in all this. Even at this point, bro. Thomas recognized that to be in fellowship with an organization of brethren meant that you were in fellowship with all those in that organization. This principle of fellowship is well acknowledged in the writings of bro. Thomas, and in those of his enemies in those days. Bro. Thomas didn't question whether or not he broke bread with those who he said believed a "damnable heresy." He knew he did. He just didn't feel that he had any responsibility to do anything about it, or that he incurred any responsibility for it, at this time. As we shall show, this attitude will change greatly.
This is a very important point when examining his teachings at this time. Bro. Thomas did not deny that he was in close association with error. He recognized that in maintaining his relationship with brethren, like those in Lincoln, whose very baptism he openly questioned, he in fact was in fellowship with them. Where can this concept come from, but 2 John 11? He had no question as to the principle of fellowship, and how it was extended among brethren. He just refused to believe that he had any responsibility in being in fellowship with these men.
* * * * *
Bro. Roberts Sets the Matter Clear
We are told by our Central brethren, that while no one would take this matter to the extreme of bro. Thomas, these writings still show his mind on the subject, and therefore we are not justified in ever withdrawing fellowship from other Christadelphian groups. Some even argue that we should extend fellowship to Christadelphian offshoots, such as Benjamin Wilson's Church of God of the Abrahamic Covenant discussed below. In fact, some in Central have already begun to fellowship these groups. So, if this is the case, why have Christadelphians over the last 150 years refused behave this way?
The answer is that these ideas advanced by bro. Thomas were rejected by bro. Thomas in his later writings, and that rejection is confirmed by bro. Roberts. Here is bro. Roberts writing in bro. Thomas' biography, on these very things advanced by some Central brethren, concerning bro. Thomas' early position.
Life and Times of Dr. Thomas: "Shortly after his arrival in London, Doctor Thomas called upon Mr. John Black, elder or pastor of a Campbellite congregation, meeting at Elstree Street, Camden Town, and delivered to him a letter of recommendation from a Campbellite friend in New York. His reception was friendly. A few days afterwards, however, he was requested to meet Mr. Black and Mr. King, as "they deemed some conversation requisite" before inviting him to take part in their fellowship. At the interview, he was asked "whether, when in the States, he refused to fellowship those Christians who had not been baptised while possessing the opinions which he held?" To this the Doctor answered in the negative, which was the fact, for he had not, at that time, arrived at the conviction he afterwards reached, that duty required separation at the breaking of bread from all who had not been immersed upon a faith in the hope of Israel."
So here we have a very clear statement from bro. Roberts that these events which are now trumpeted by Central, did not represent bro. Thomas' final views. It is hard to imagine how he could have been clearer. But this matter had more play in Christadelphian circles of the past, than just this. Following the "Partial Inspiration" division of 1885, where bro. Roberts and the faithful ecclesias withdrew from many brethren, those withdrawn from created a separate body which ultimately became known as the "Suffolk Street" fellowship. In 1891, a member of the Suffolk Street meetings advanced a pamphlet he called "Open Door." It was so called, because it argued for fellowship to be practiced as an Open Door. The pamphlet argued that the actions taken by bro. Roberts and the faithful ecclesias in 1885 were wrong, and had in it, these same quotes now advanced by so many in Central.
The author of the "Open Door" advances these same arguments in opposition to the teaching and practices of bro. Roberts. He also quotes from an even earlier, 1837 article by bro. Thomas. Here is bro. Roberts' response to this article, and the ideas advanced by the pamphleteer:
"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.
In the above, bro. Roberts gives us a very clear and precise answer to the questions advanced by some Central web sites. The writings they quote do not represent bro. Thomas' final conclusions, but were his practice for a period when there were no ecclesias, per se; but only those starting to separate themselves from the fog of Christendom. But we don’t simply require bro. Roberts testimony of bro. Thomas’ belief. It is clear enough in all that he writes after his very early period.
Bro. Thomas Himself Sets the Matter Clear
The change in the fellowship position of bro. Thomas was drastic, from 1851 through 1856. In 1859, bro. Thomas responds to a reformist about his behavior in 1847, and observe the change in position he has, in responding to an attack on his belief of fellowship. The reformist argues that he had "non-fellowshipped" everyone. Of course this had been true of his position in 1847. Now, he says, he fellowshipped those in the Truth.
Bro. Thomas, for himself, believed he had "non-fellowshipped" the Reformist movement. This is why he could tell the Campbellites in Britain, that he had not disfellowshipped them. He had "non-fellowshipped" them. The 'Non-fellowshipping of the brethren," as stated by bro. Thomas, is the belief expressed by our Nicodemite brethren that fellowship is between themselves and God, but not necessarily those who broke bread with them. As bro. Thomas went away from this view, he drew the criticism of those he now refused to fellowship. He was then criticized a lot by his former friends for his "non-fellowship" of them. He responded to one, a Millerite, this way, and note how he now denies his former position of "non-fellowship" by affirming he is, in fact in fellowship with certain brethren.
Herald 1859 pg 65-70 In the days of our ignorance of the Gospel of the Kingdom we were in denominational fraternity with Nathaniel Field, M. D.; but with Joseph Marsh, as a Christyan, Millerite, or ought else, we have had no ecclesiastical relation. In March, 1847, we left friend Nathaniel in fellowship with all the sentiments (though in the following September he renounced " the Reformation " of A. C.); for at that time we publicly renounced all fellowship with " Christendom," and its names and denominations, one and all. Friend Joseph was then floundering in Millerism, and contending with "the saints" above named, and against the items of what , he called "carnal Judaism," wherever they chanced to show themselves. Upon this subject, brethren Joseph Pierce and M'Millan, both of Rochester, and members with Mr. Marsh, can tell a tale showing the awful darkness that beclouded his mind.
Commenting later about the same Reformists' complaints, bro. Thomas says:
Herald 1859 pg. 84 Nathaniel the Adventist says to the two thousand subscribers of his brother Joseph's Expositor. Referring to the resolution he remarks, " from this it will be seen that Dr. Thomas once acknowledged, in obedience to the dictum of Alexander Campbell, that the doctrine he is now teaching, and for not believing which, he now non-fellowships everybody, was of no practical benefit!!! " Now, when Nathaniel, the gentile indeed, penned this, he doubtless gleefully thought he had cornered us up into a very tight place, indeed; but when he had done laughing and rubbing his hands, and about to eat us up like bread, he would find that we were not there. There are just three falsehoods in the four lines we have quoted. We do not say that they are wilful lies ; but the lies of ignorance or stupidity, or of both. If Nathaniel and Joseph cannot interpret scripture more luminously and accurately than said resolution, and our position, they had better stop and go to grass with Nebuchadnezzar, until seven times pass over them, and their reason return unto them. We did nothing "in obedience to the dictum of A.C," for A.C. said nothing in the premises; secondly, the doctrine we are now teaching "as the gospel and its obedience, we were ignorant of in 1838, when said resolution was so written and its recommendation accepted ; and therefore, we could not, and did not, nor could our friends and enemies agree to say that that doctrine of which we were then all ignorant, " was of no practical benefit." As to fellowship, we fellowship all who can prove by the word that they have believed and obeyed the gospel of the kingdom prophesied of by Moses and the prophets, and preached by Jesus and the apostles; but as President Campbell and the Arcadian brothers, Joseph and Nathaniel, cannot work out the demonstration, we cannot admit that they are anything more than a theoretical improvement upon Millerism.
So in 1847, he had non-fellowshipped everyone, but broke bread with everyone. Now in 1859, we find him explaining his position and responding to critics irritated that he will no longer fellowship with them, break bread with them, or cooperate with them in any way. His position has completely changed. We can see the change coming in his writings. By 1853, bro. Thomas' position as to meeting with the enemy has significantly changed. Writing in the Herald he wrote:
"; the for-it side, and the against-it side; and between these two sides there is no neutral ground. He that is not for me, said Jesus, is against me; and he styled himself " the Truth ". If we are for the Truth, we cannot encamp with the enemy, and co-operate with them. Being for the Truth, it will place us in the minority, and identify us with those who suffer for the Truth's sake. He that runs with the hare, but holds with the hounds, will never save the fugitive from being worried to death. There were men in the days of Jesus who would preach his doctrine and not speak lightly of him, but would also carefully avoid identification with his unsavoury name. This is referable to the pride of life, love of popularity, or to some other equally unworthy thing. It is certainly a course not prompted by a devotion to the Truth, or a love of righteousness. Moses acted not thus. He renounced the throne and treasures of Egypt for the society of enslaved brick-makers. The other course evinces indecision of character which cannot be approved of the Lord when he comes. Sky-kingdomism is unscriptural and wholly false, and therefore subversive, wherever it prevails, of " the Gospel of the Kingdom of God ", which is wholly Scriptural and only and altogether true. If I identify myself, without a standing protest against it, and with those "who believe and advocate it, I become by example an enemy of that which I believe is true.The Herald, 1853 The Truth creates " sides
Note the change over two years. In 1851, it didn't matter who he broke bread with, or cooperated with in various projects. Now he says, he cannot co-operate or encamp with those who do not hold the Truth. It is, in fact, our Nicodemite brethren that bro. Thomas is writings about here. They hold doctrine with the hare (the Bereans,) but they run with the hounds (Central.) We next see the change in attitude in the recording of a baptism of a former Campbellite.
Herald, 1854, November "The discourse being finished, Mr. Harris, a member of the Campbellite church meeting at Corinth, in that county, a respectable man, and of good standing with his brethren, applied to me to assist him in obeying the gospel of the Kingdom in the name of Jesus Christ. It was therefore arranged that he should meet me there on the morrow with changes of raiment, and that I should immerse him after the people were dismissed. On his return home he communicated his intention to his ecclesiastical associates of putting off Campbellism with the old man, and of putting on Christ by being immersed on an intelligent belief of the Kingdom’s gospel, and from whose fellowship he announced his purpose to withdraw. He did this, not that it was necessary, but to prevent them from saying that he had treated them with disrespect."
So in 1848, brethren could be baptized and maintain their relationship with Campbellism, now the baptism was recognized as "putting off Campbellism" and a withdrawal of fellowship from that group. Note the change in bro. Thomas' attitude towards fellowship. Prior to this, he wasn't willing to say that we could be in fellowship with error. Now he acknowledged that the brother had, in fact, been in fellowship with the Campbellites, and he was coming out from that fellowship. This demonstrates a further change in attitude.
Clearly by 1856, the fellowship policies which require separation from error now practiced by bro. Thomas, are coming under severe attack by his former friends. The following is a response to an article written against his new fellowship practices which exclude old associates, who in some cases did not know, and in other cases did not obey the gospel. The following is very significant, for it shows that bro. Thomas now not only requires belief in the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ, but he also requires those he meets with to require the same. This is the Berean position. He writes that the rule of sanctification is faith in the things of the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ, and that these principles must be applied by them whose fellowship is sought.
The removal from the reformists camp got bro. Thomas branded with the name of an Ishmaelite, and an Iron Bed Stead maker, expressions his critics felt indicated a position of constant strife. In making his charges against bro. Thomas, the man started out with the obligatory, "Of course we should not receive the unsanctified into our bosom." This is not unlike our Central brethren, who also give lip service to fellowship, saying that of course they cannot receive the heretic into fellowship. Then, just as this critic of bro. Thomas, they do.
Herald 1856, pg. 69 - 70 PROOF OF SANCTIFICATION
"We should not receive the unsanctified into our bosom ;" that is, we suppose the writer means, into our fellowship. This is also true. But by what rule or standard is their unsanctifiedness to be determined ? And by whom are the principles of that rule to be applied? An Ishmaelite, or iron bedstead manufacturer, says the rule of sanctification is faith in the things of the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts viii. 12), and the baptism of such a believer " into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit;" and in answer to the second question, he says, the principles must be applied by them whose fellowship is sought. A man claims admission into their bosom who says he is sanctified. Are they bound to receive him on his simple assertion ? If it be answered " yes," then they would be bound to receive Archbishop Hughes and his master the Devil, for they both say they are sanctified! It is evident, then, that a man's sanctification cannot be admitted on mere assertion. Evidence of sanctification must be adduced. But it is no use producing evidence, if it is not to be judged. "Judge not that ye be not judged," does not then apply to judging of evidence. Men are commanded to "try the spirits" which can only be done by examination of evidence and testimony. A man, then, must produce proof of his assertion before his sanctification can be admitted by those whose fellowship he claims. This is scriptural and rational, however much of bigotry and sectarianism there may be in it according to modern Christian liberalism, which, after all said, is but a species of infidelity. If said claimant say, " I was sanctified when I experienced a hope of pardon ;" and on further inquiry, he confess that he was ignorant of the purpose of God in relation to Palestine, the Twelve Tribes, and the nations, with Abraham, Christ, and the Saints' connection therewith ; it is therefore certain, whatever he may have believed about Jesus, that he was ignorant of the gospel or the truth. Devoid of this, no man can be sanctified, for it is the sanctifying principle. When Jesus prayed for the sanctification of his disciples he said, " Sanctify them by the truth: thy doctrine— ό λόγος ό σος—is truth." The Spirit sanctifies when the doctrine of God sanctifies ; and a man's sanctification by the truth is known when, confessing what Jesus confessed before Pilate, he is " washed, sanctified, and justified, by his name and God's Spirit"—1 Cor. vi. 11; Rom. x. 8 ; 1 Tim. vi. 3, 4,12, 13. The sanctification of men, be they dipped or sprinkled, baptized in ignorance of the promises covenanted to them who love God, is a dogma of the Apostacy, which we sincerely, earnestly, and faithfully, advise all to repudiate, who favor a return to the doctrine and practice of the primitive believers. EDITOR.
This article had been preceded by a similar expression concerning fellowship. A reformist again gave lip service to maintaining principles of fellowship, but then excused them. Bro. Thomas pointed out that such men find the principles of the Truth to be "exclusive, unchristian, and Ishmaelitish (meaning in harmony with bro. Thomas). Does this not sound familiar? Is this not exactly what our Nicodemite brethren say of us? Bro. Thomas and those with him are condemned for "judging thy brother." Bro. Thomas points that these are tools used by the unfaithful to silence the application of the principles of the Truth.
INTOLERANCE OF LIBERALISM.
" In endeavouring to guard against sectarian intolerance, we are liable to treat the strict requirements of the gospel with looseness. * * * Because others have rejected from their fellowship the humble Christian, we should not receive the unsanctified into our bosom"—Expositor, p.1 75.
The above is true. The treating the strict requirements of the gospel with looseness, is the crying sin of the piety of this age of gospel profession. By "the requirements of the gospel" are meant, we suppose, the requirements of the Lord Jesus and his apostles in their teaching. He required that, for men to be recognized as his disciples, they should believe the word or gospel he preached in Judea ; and that such believers should be baptized. This requirement, however, is almost universally disregarded. It is too sectarian and intolerant for the generality, whose " Christian charity and liberality" rejoices in unbounded toleration of "opinions" for all who do not call in question their Christianity; that is, the scripturality of what they teach as gospel, and the obedience it requires. With all their " liberality," they have no tolerance for such an "opinion" as this It is "exclusive," "unchristian," and " Ishmaelitish. To try their foundation by a logical application of the word, is to become " greater than our father Abraham or the apostles," and to set up for a Pope, or a manufacturer of iron bedsteads ! Admit that their recognition of the divine sonship of Jesus, with ignorance, or denial, of the gospel he preached, is a scriptural foundation for a man to be placed upon by immersion, and you are a very liberal, Christian, and charitable person. This admission, with piety, constitutes a " humble Christian" of modern type, who cannot be rejected from fellowship by any without universal condemnation and execration. Upon such premises, however, the Pope and all his associates are admissible to fellowship, and the man is an Ishmaelite that rejects their Christianity by a logical application of the word against it. He sets up for a pope who denies the Pope's gospel to be the gospel of Christ by a logical application of Scripture ! "Who art thou that judgest thy brother ?"— " Who made thee the judge of another man's servant"—thus, by such taunts as these, they would silence the application of your discourse! It is the essence of " liberal Christianity" to riot in unbounded licence of discourse, with intense and angry intolerance of the " application" of the same.
EDITOR.
In 1859, bro. Thomas traveled to Shady Grove, Ill. Here he made comments about how the brethren should develop their ecclesia. In a fairly recent web posting about Bereans (called "Reactionaries" in a web article), the writer condemns the Bereans for their lack of interest in worldly success. This article, besides lending proof to the change in bro. Thomas and his position on fellowship, also deals with the subject of wealth.
Herald, 1959, pg. 276-277 From Good Hope we went to Shady Grove. This is a house recently purchased of the Methodists, with about two acres of land attached ; or, if not purchased directly from them, was last in their possession. "The Court," we believe, had something to do with the sale of it. It is now, however, owned by those who have understandingly obeyed " the gospel of the Kingdom;" a small nucleus of whom, quite sufficient for a healthful beginning, have been organized in the interests of the faith. We trust they will have more regard to the quality than the quantity of members. Paul has declared that "the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God ;" and among these he enumerates " covetous, drunkards, revilers, &c," and any that walk according to and sow to the flesh. It is the duty, therefore, of the brethren to receive none such into their nucleus if they would acquit themselves of the responsibility resting upon them and walk before God to all well pleasing. Christ's body is not to be used for the promotion of unhallowed purposes.
When scripturally constituted it is a company of poor men and women, " rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom God has promised " to those who evince their love of him in keeping his commandments. Occasionally, a man rich in this world's goods may be found among them ; but for him, owing to "the deceitfulness of riches," it is as difficult to enter the kingdom as for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. The besetting sin of the rich is "covetousness," or a desire to heap up wealth, to which they are devoted because of the ability it confers of gratifying the lusts and devilish ambitions of the flesh. Hence, Paul styles it " idolatry" and says, " no covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." A rich Christian, who is not an idolater, is one " who is not high minded, or trusts in uncertain riches, &c.; who does good, is rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; so laying up in store a good foundation for the future, that he may lay hold on Aion- Life." · He is one who, although his riches are able to give him a commanding position among the splendid fools of " this present evil aion," prefers, like the anointed Jesus, to " be conducted with the despised "—to consort with them; " he rejoices in his humiliation ; because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away." A rich Christian, who comprehends the perilousness of his position, uses the riches he commands as the mere steward of another's wealth—of Christ's; to whom he will have to render an account of what he has done with Christ's property in the promotion of truth and righteousness in the earth. A rich Christian, who understands his true position and relation to God, does not devote the energies of his body, soul and spirit, to the heaping up of " goods, chattels and effects," for the children of the flesh, whether of his own or somebody else's body that may come after him. He does not imperil his own salvation for the benefit, or rather fleshly gratification, of the sons of Belial, who are enemies to the truth ; and care no more for him than what they can make by his suicidal folly.
A Christian, rich in faith, and abounding in the good things of life, which he administers after a goodly sort, is one whose praise is in the mouth of all his brethren, and commands the respect and admiration, if not the love, of all who know him. He has a good report with those who are without. He is holy, harmless, undefiled, find separate from sinners. He eschews the friendship of the world which is at enmity with God; knowing that " whosoever will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." The world is crucified to him, and he unto the world. He minds the things which are anew, not the things at present upon the earth; for he knows that the minding of these is death; and that they who are in the flesh, that is, who live after the flesh, cannot please God.
To " the poor in the world," then, who are " rich in faith," we may say, how thankful, brethren, ought we to be that we are not rich! Nor let any be envious against those that are ; but rather commiserate their misfortune, and as much as possible strengthen them against the perils by which they are besieged. Our heart aches for the rich professors of our day ; for we perceive that very few of them, judging by the fruits of the tree, have faith enough to be saved. The rich fade away in their ways." They value themselves upon what they possess, being, for the most part, full of goods, but empty of head and lean of soul. But God esteems them no more than a beggar full of sores; for there is no respect of persons "with. him. Let us, then, imitate God ; and "hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus anointed of the glory, in respect to persons." ; Let character and devotion to the truth, and active repudiation of all sympathy with the "Names of Blasphemy " around us, and not pelf and position, the admiration and idolatry of a vain and shallow world, be the conditions of our sympathy with persons. For ourselves, be they rich or poor, we desire cooperation and fellowship with such only. "The truth as it is in Jesus," is the basis of our relations and intimacies with mankind ; when this is repudiated or betrayed, or crucified, we consider ourselves as put to an open shame, and repudiated likewise. We have no use for those who cause the truth to be evil spoken of by their malpractice ; and certain we are they can have no use for us. If people who profess the truth dishonor that truth, they dishonor us; and we do not want, nor will we condescend to have, any co-operation with them, be they as rich as Croesus or as poor as Job. They are only stumbling blocks and hindrances in the way; and the truth can never progress in the halo of their obliquity. In former years, we used to address the people at Led better, some three miles or so from Shady Grove. But we forsook that house in despair, as a mere mausoleum of the dead. Instead of this, we commenced on Sept. 6, to experiment upon the public mind at Shady Grove. If things assume a better aspect there we shall rejoice. Our future visits "will depend upon this; for no tiling can be done with the unbelieving where the brethren are unfaithful to the truth. If the people are disposed to hear, and will come out largely, as they did at Ledbetter; but they will not obey the truth, if the manifestations at the Grove are no better than there. We hope, then, better things, aud shall be greatly mortified if they do not appear.
Next we see the change in bro. Thomas' attitude towards fellowship, in the writing of Eureka, Volume I, which was printed in 1860. Now, remember what the issue was in 1851. The issue was never, "am I in fellowship with all congregations in which I am associated." Bro. Thomas had believed that there was a sense in which he was, though not a spiritual sense. This was very clear from his speech to the Church of Christ convention in Glasgow, in 1848. The question was, is my fellowshipping of error my responsibility, and if I fellowship error, is it sin? In 1848 and to a lesser degree in 1851, bro. Thomas denied that this was the case. But now we come to his writing in Eureka, where he is very clear.
Eureka I: 328 "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."
Here again we see a significant change in the teachings of bro. Thomas. Here he recognizes that to eat at the table, is to fellowship. This is the exact point clung to by our Nicodemite brethren, clearly denied by bro. Thomas. And finally, we have this clear statement from bro. Thomas, again exhibiting his change in fellowship position. The following is a condemnation of forming committees to accomplish some purpose. Bro. Thomas points out that it shouldn't happen. Each ecclesia must handle its own affairs. Each ecclesia must decide for itself who it is willing to fellowship, and who it is not willing to fellowship. The great damage done to the truth has been done by committees getting together to forge reunions, where the original basis for the division was not resolved. These committees were made up of men who disregarded the original cause, forged unions which caused the Antipas brethren to withdraw, and greatly weakened the hands of the Nicodemite brethren.
Herald, 1861, pg. 262 Now, as to all these things, as far as we know the views of the brethren in this country, with a few exceptions, are utterly opposed. We have no "conferences." The conferences referred to in "The Messenger" are such as that described by the brother in Michigan. They are Adventist Conferences, and their leaders Adventists, who in the main are characterizable as Campbellists, Baptists, and Methodists who believe in the second advent; or professors immersed in ignorance of the truth, who, after their immersion, have acquired a smattering of it. We do not fellowship and cooperate with such. By we is meant, those who believed the truth first and obeyed it next; and who contend earnestly for it unmixed with crotchets and traditions. There may be some who have scripturally obeyed the truth, who believe in conferences in Northern Illinois and Southern Wisconsin ; but of that some, we know that they have said, they will attend no more. They see that their influence is evil in the absence of divine authority and wisdom to enlighten and keep things straight. They are ecclesiastical schemes for the promotion of the hireling system, and for the working out of lay and clerical speculations. We protest against them all as incipient tyrannies. Let every church manage its own affairs; let its members exert themselves in their own spheres for the diffusion of the truth; and if any can publicly "preach the word," let him go forth as we do without stipulation, and trust to the appreciation of his labors by his brethren, for his expenses and support. We start on a journey of a thousand or more miles at our own risk, and trust to the spontaneous liberality of brethren for results. Why cannot others go and do so likewise ? This has been our course for nearly thirty years. We went to Britain upon this principle, and labored there. " Conferences," and " committees on evangelists," never created the means to send us out. We went of our own accord, and many profess to have been benefitted. If a man be really devoted to the truth he will not wait for money to be raised to send him out. When by his earnest and selfdenying labors he makes his influence felt, means will come in with the labor to extend its field. An " evangelist" who waits to be sent out by subscription, is just the man who should stay at home and take care of his own household. Conferences and committees and subscription lists, cannot make " evangelists ; " they can make public talkers for the lucre's sake, but not scriptural evangelists. This is the name of what does not now exist. It was one of the creations of " the grace which came through Jesus Christ." It was a creation of holy spirit— a saint who carried to and fro the good message, which God confirmed by his operations; and who could ordain elders by the inworking of powers for the work of the ministry. If we have the name, brethren, pray also let us have the thing.
By 1862, a group of brethren from England that bro. Roberts had a strong personal relationship with, were clearly not willing to defend the truth. It was not so much that they personally believed error (though some of them clearly did) but it was more a problem that they would not defend the truth from error. Most of them affirmed the positive aspects of the truth, but would not condemn the negative aspects of Christendom.
The leader of this group of brethren was bro. George Dowie. Bro. and sis. Roberts had been married by bro. Dowie. Bro. Roberts was reluctant to withdraw fellowship from these brethren, mostly because he, himself, had not yet come to a perfect understanding of the doctrine of fellowship. His reluctance strained his relationship with bro. Thomas. He records these events under a title "Strained Relations with Dr. Thomas" is his autobiography, "My Days and My Ways."
“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 an 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 they.
“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.
By 1866, there was no longer any question in anyone's mind, about whether or not action could be taken against another for false doctrine. But a question came up as to whether or not action could be taken against a brother whose walk was disorderly. The following exhibits how withdrawal from false doctrine was a given and bro. Thomas answers the balance:
Chdn. 1866, pg. 206 I hope that all things are rectified in a certain direction. It is a monstrous conceit that “the only discipline the Ecclesia can enforce in these times is against false doctrine, and not against immorality of conduct.” Such a rule as this, approved by any society of professors, would make it a fellowship of iniquity. For myself, I would not belong to such a body of evil doers. The conceit is itself false doctrine, and, therefore, a matter of discipline. Such a dogma is symptomatic of immorality in the holder. An ecclesia should, at least, aim to keep itself free from the corruptions that are in the world through lust, though it may not succeed to the extent desired. To fellowship iniquity knowingly, and without rebuke, makes us partakers in the guilt.
In observing the development of bro. Thomas, we see that in 1851 and before, he felt it was not wrong to break bread with most all error, including the immortality of the soul, or with unbaptized believers. In 1860, in the writing of Eureka Volume One, he plainly states that to eat at Jezebel's table is to fellowship deified immortal souls, and was sin. In 1866, he writes to knowingly fellowship iniquity makes us partakers in the guilt. Note how significant of a change takes place in bro. Thomas. But to be fair to bro. Thomas, he himself was quite clear to the Campbellite folks in 1851, that he had not made up his mind on the doctrine of fellowship. Remember this now. The brethren who are arguing for these words to be considered bro. Thomas' teaching, are taking words from a period when he himself says, he hadn't made up his mind as to what the teaching of the Spirit was in this matter. In responding to the Campbellite criticisms, he wrote to them:
From Life and Works of Dr. Thomas by bro. Roberts "1.—You have no right to construe for me, neither have you the ability till you are made intelligent upon the subject of my views of fellowship. I claim the sole right of construing my own sentiments, and when I shall have construed and published them to the world in their application, it will be high time for you to express your approval or rejection of them and their author. You have your views of fellowship; they may or may not be mine: I discuss them not. My duty is to state and advocate what I believe to be God's truth according to the manner which appears to me (not to you) most scriptural. It is for me to state, illustrate, and prove principles, and to interpret the word; and to leave men's consciences to make the application—it is not for me to adjudge them to ecclesiastical pains and penalties. I have stated in my writings that ‘the immortality of the soul, as taught in dogmatic theology, is the Hymenean and Philetan heresy; and I have shown from Paul's words that it is in his estimation a 'damnable heresy.' The arguments you have not seen; yet you judge. Is this wisdom? I have received the conclusion to which Paul leads me. Did he tell the orthodox Corinthians to cast their heterodox friends out of their synagogue, or to non-fellowship them? No; and further than this, he still fraternised with the church, although they gave him so much annoyance on this very subject. His object was to enlighten and reclaim, not to cut off, and treat as enemies those whom this cancer-eating sentiment led to the denial of the resurrection of the dead, and by implication, the resurrection of Jesus himself, and the subversion of the doctrine of the kingdom of God.
So with this clear testimony from bro. Roberts that this behavior did not reflect correctly on bro. Thomas’ ultimate views, and with this clear change from bro. Thomas’ own pen; why should any one suggest that these primitive ideas formed before there were ecclesias, were bro. Thomas' mature views. An article critical of "The Doctrine of Fellowship" claims that it is strange that we did not include these writings in our booklet. In view of bro. Roberts emphatic position that he changed from this position, and in view of bro. Thomas' later writings, and in view of the writings in the Ambassador and the Christadelphian during the last ten years of bro. Thomas' life; we find it far stranger that these things are advanced by Central brethren now!
* * * * *
Fellowship with Unbaptized Believers
The other matter being advanced by our Central brethren is how bro. Thomas dealt with a question advanced to him by Benjamin Wilson in 1851. Benjamin Wilson is the author of the Diaglott, and he is also one of the founders of the Church of God of the Abrahamic Covenant. This Church is one of the splinter groups now fellowshipped by some in Central. Probably nothing more clearly demonstrates the change in bro. Thomas on the doctrine of fellowship, than his dealing with Benjamin Wilson. Benjamin Wilson had a man attending his meeting who had learned the truth, but refused to be baptized into it. He felt his previous baptism, which was done in ignorance, was sufficient. Benjamin Wilson enquired to bro. Thomas as to how to proceed. This was bro. Thomas' answer to him at that time.
Herald 1851, pg. 120 You all know what my practice has been. When I came to understand the things of the kingdom and name of Jesus, in other words, the gospel, some fifteen years after an immersion in times of ignorance, I was immersed again. Not that I believed a plurality of immersions is necessary for one baptism. I believe no such thing; but this I do regard as a self-evident truth, that it is an intelligent, docile and humble appreciation of the gospel of the kingdom in the name of Jesus as the Christ before immersion, that constitutes said immersion the one baptism, or obedience to faith. How can an immersion be “obedience to the faith” while the subject is ignorant of “the faith?” It is the faith which justifies, but it justifies in the act of union to the name: still it is the faith, and not the uniting, which is counted to us for righteousness.
No one should “go to the water every time they receive a little fresh light.” But Baptistism and Campbellism are neither of them light, nor the light. The “gospel” preached by the Baptists, and by the Campbellites is not the gospel of the kingdom, as all Baptists and Campbellites confess when they come to understand it. When they understand it they have not received “a little fresh light,” but they have got their eyes open to the light for the first time. Now the question is, “What ought a man to do who has thus come to the light?” Let him obey the truth in the love of it as unto God and not to men.
No immersed man can “lay the first principles over again” who has come to the knowledge of the truth subsequently to his immersion. The first principles are contained in the things of the kingdom and name conjointly. “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness.”
You are doubtless “in a transition state;” and have well determined “to know before you do. But to suspend your meeting would not increase your knowledge; but tend rather to impede your progress. Meetings are useful. They attract the mind to the subject once a week. They exert an influence which counteracts that of the world without. No, my advice is do not suspend, but endeavor to come to unanimity on the subject with as little delay as possible that you may go on to perfection. But if there be one that cannot yet see it his duty to be re-immersed, be patient with him, assist him to an understanding with the light you have; his dubiousness will not endanger you, provided you are faithful in maintaining what you believe right. Act not judicially on his case; the Lord will do thus when he comes.
Our Central brethren hinge on this last statement, "His dubiousness will not endanger you, provided you are faithful in maintaining what you believe right." They argue that in this bro. Thomas is arguing against Johns teaching in 2 John 7-9, that in bidding them "Godspeed, we are partakers of their evil deeds." And in a sense he was, though a different sense than maintained by our Central brethren. He did not deny the principle. He did not deny that he was in fellowship with these false brethren. He just didn't believe he, himself, incurred any responsibility for doing so.
But here is bro. Thomas commenting again on Benjamin Wilson's group, some 16 years later, in relation to the same issue, knowledgeable baptism. The group had come to be known as "Brethren of the West" and they were centered in Crain's Grove, Ill. where there was also a Christadelphian ecclesia. This section deals with an historical matter, where the Brethren of the West sought financial assistance from the Christadelphians for the publishing of a magazine. Commenting on their proposal (which was rejected by the Christadelphians) bro. Thomas wrote:
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. He declined their invitation, but added, that if any of them wished a talk with him, he would send his vehicle for them, and bring them to his house. But, it was evident, he thinks, that it was his funds, and not his person, they wanted; for priest and Levite all passed by on the other side, and left him in the hands of that cursed Samaritan, Dr. Thomas!
Writing to bro. Roberts, bro. Thomas compares these men to the Dowieites in Britain:
Christadelphian 1866, pg. 33 The characteristic of a true Christadelphian is “ the obedience of faith ” and a “walk worthy of God;” in other words, he first understands the things of the Kingdom of God, and Name of Jesus Christ; secondly , he believes what he understands, and loves what he believes above every other thing; thirdly , his “faith working by love” causes him to be immersed into the Divine Name; fourthly , he walks in the truth, and is careful to do nothing to its injury: and fifthly , he will not fellowship those who do not so believe and do. This is the Christadelphian theory and practice which separates us from Dowieites with you, and Benjamites and “brethren in the West” over here.
It is hard to see that anything could be clearer.
* * * * *
Slave Owning
The final quote advanced by some Central brethren is from an 1861 Herald. It is from a discussion of slavery, and the criticism bro. Thomas was receiving for continuing fellowship with slave owners, by a particular man in Canada. Bro. Thomas was called a slave-owner, which he wasn't. The argument was advanced that if you fellowship slave owners, then you yourself are guilty of slave owning. This is a false argument, and bro. Thomas points that out to those accusing him of such. If a man fellowships error, he is guilty of his own sin for doing so, he is not guilty of the specific error he fellowships. The quoted portion of the article reads thus:
"...For on Sunday morning, when bro. Coombe went to the Temperance Hall to see if any sentinel was there to tell the people where to go to hear us, he found the plank footway, or sidewalk, chalked with large letters warning the people not to go and hear this Dr. Thomas, who was a slave-owner. But, besides this, there were posted on a tree and lamp-post hard by, two notices advertising passengers not to hear us, because we were a slave-driver. But the advertiser had learned, with others of the public, that the meeting-place was changed to the Mechanics' Institute; so. regarding his work but half done, he went there, and chalked the side-walk with the words, 'This Dr. Thomas is a slaveholder—don't go and hear him.' Of course this was a wanton and gratuitous falsehood; but marvellously illustrative of the untruthfulness of the writer and the man that put him to work. We neither own, hold, nor drive slaves, black, white, or grey; and this is well known to the proprietor of the pulpit we avoided, and the misguided people whom he deceives. At the same time, we are not an abolitionist, whose political fanaticism and gnat-straining hypocrisy, which are all based upon the infidel speculations of the fleshly mind, we utterly despise. This same zealot, who sought to close the ears of the people of Toronto against us. by raising the antislavery hue and cry, is in the very same condemnation. His argument is, that in fellowshipping slave owners, and those who fellowship them, the parties so fellowshipping them are partakers with them of their evil deeds; and are, therefore, as much slave-owners and slaveholders as if they actually held and drove them. The argument is specious, but not sound; take it, however, as you will, it convicts the advertiser and those who rejoice in him, of hypocrisy, as well as what they call crime." This man, who inspired the advertisement, when at our house in Mott Haven, Ν. Υ., denounced all slave-owners as " thieves and robbers." On this we sternly rebuked him, telling him that they were no more " thieves and robbers" than he (we might have added, perhaps, less so); but many of them, to our personal knowledge, the salt of the earth, who could no more help being the owners of slaves than northern heritors being the owners of the estates to which they were born. Finding that we did not fall in with his denunciations, he lowered his tone upon this point, and in a subdued voice said, " Then you will admit that it was very injudicious for Whitehead to introduce the subject in the present state of excitement"—an excitement, by-the-by, that did not exist in Toronto beyond the narrow limits of his own turbulence and arrogance..."
It is small wonder that our Central brethren are so excited by these charges against bro. Thomas, as this is the same charge they make against us. It is the same charge that our Nicodemite brother makes against us. He wrote to me:
"3) Worse you've adopted a view of fellowship that as I say, fellowships or "imputes the sins of all members to each individual person who claims, whether justly or unjustly, a place at the 'table,' irrespective of where in the world they may be." From 014
And from the website:
"This view of fellowship is, in reality, more polluted than what these fellowships criticize because it imputes the sins of all members to each individual person who claims, whether justly or unjustly, a place at the "table," irrespective of where in the world they may be. If they did not believe this was true then they would not issue blanket accusations against all Central Christadelphians charging them with "fellowshipping error". Bereans cannot claim that they only mean that "otherwise faithful brethren" are merely "disobedient", if words have meaning. If the principle is true when applied against those they criticize, then it is no less true when applied to themselves (Matthew 7:2)."
To fellowship sinners, and have their sin imputed to you; or to fellowship slave owners, and therefore be guilty of slave owning, is the same principle. The pamphleteer of the "Open Door" made this same charge against bro. Roberts, arguing that the sin of the errorist is "transmitted" to us through fellowship. Nicodemites claim that our teaching "imputes the sins of all members to each individual person who claims, whether justly or unjustly, a place at the table." Central brethren often tell us that we believe that by fellowshipping error, we become guilty of the error we fellowship.
We believe no such thing. We do not believe that to fellowship the error, makes you an errorist, transmitted, imputed or otherwise. We believe that to fellowship error makes you personally disobedient to divine command. Bro. Thomas did not even believe that to be a slave owner was to be an errorist, for reasons he makes in that same article. But under no circumstances did he, or any one else with an understanding of fellowship believe it made him a "slave-owner" or "slave-driver."
The following article is directly to this point. It is broken up and discussed in the Christadelphian Magazine for 1892, while bro. Roberts was editor. The letter "F" precedes the statement by the pamphleteer. The letter "T" precedes the brother defending the position of the Christadelphian Magazine. You can see that it is the same argument this man made against bro. Thomas. This zealot accused bro. Thomas of being a slave owner. Nicodemites say we believe sins are "imputed" to each other through fellowship. The following brother accuses Christadelphians of believing sins are transmitted from errorists to sound brethren through the act of fellowship. It is all the same error, stated in the terms of the day. But in neither case is it what true Christadelphians believe.
F: 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 practice.
T: True also: provided 1) that the errors affect first principles; 2) that the unrighteous conduct has not been repented of; and 3) that we are aware of such errors of belief and conduct.
F: 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.
T: If by "some point or other" you mean such errors as just referred to, we are justified in so refusing, and the grounds for such refusal will be manifest as we proceed with our arguments.
F: Our fear has been that the responsibility of error would be transmitted to us through the medium of someone who had himself become subject to that responsibility through the act of fellowship.
T: What do you mean by "responsibility transmitted"?
F: That evil, either of faith or practice, is conveyed from one to another by the act of breaking bread, much in the same way as uncleanness was conveyed from the leper through another who came into personal contact with him, to a third person, a fourth, and so on.
T: Your understanding of the matter is not correct. As to responsibility being "transmitted" through mediums, we have never held any such idea. A man is only responsible for his own errors (and quite enough, too). We believe that if he knowingly fellowships false teachers, he is responsible for so doing. But that is a very different thing from having the particular evil of such teachers "transmitted" to him.
F: Now, if this principle be a true one, it...
T: But we have not contended it is; and therefore there is no need to speculate as to where it leads, or what the results may be of applying such a principle.
The idea that the error is transmitted or imputed through fellowship is a false notion. The man who fellowships error, does not become guilty of the error he fellowships, but is individually and personally guilty of disobeying the divine command to withdraw from error. The man who refuses to withdraw from error is then refused fellowship, not because he is an errorist, being guilty of a specific error he fellowships, but because he is willfully guilty of disobeying the divine command to withdraw from error.
No matter how many times, or different ways we deny the doctrines imputed to us by our Nicodemite brother, he just continues to repeat them. On his website, we find this charge again repeated. This is from his website, where he is dealing with my denial that we believe any such thing concerning the imputing of sins one, to another.
If they [the Bereans] did not believe this was true then they would not issue blanket accusations against all Central Christadelphians charging them with "fellowshipping error". Bereans cannot claim that they only mean that "otherwise faithful brethren" are merely "disobedient", if words have meaning. If the principle is true when applied against those they criticize, then it is no less true when applied to themselves (Matthew 7:2)."
But the point we make is exactly the same point made in the Christadelphian, when bro. Roberts was editor. Words do mean things. Central fellowship, all its members, are guilty of fellowshipping error. You very rarely these days, can even find a Central brother who denies there is error openly taught in Central. That is why there is so much emphasis now placed on rewriting Christadelphian history, so some Central brethren can argue that our foundation position has always been that we should permit error in our body, but we are not really in fellowship with it.
We issue a blanket statement that Central fellowships error, because it is a true, and inescapable statement. Words do mean things. And our words now, as bro. Jannaway's words were in 1892, are that if you fellowship error as Central does, the sins of the errorist are not transmitted or imputed to the individual. But, the brother fellowshipping error is personally responsible for his own disobedience before God, in extending fellowship where God has forbidden it. That is why we refuse fellowship to all Central brethren.
In their newly found desire to condemn us, Nicodemites find they must attribute to us, things we do not, and have never believed. Why? We have explained ourselves clearly enough. It makes no sense that while attempting to have a constructive conversation, one makes charges against your enemy that he knows he doesn't believe.
But back to the point, fellowshipping a slave owner, does not make one a slave owner. If it was against the commandments of Christ to own slaves (which it wasn't--see the Epistle to Philemon) then it would have made an individual who fellowshipped such an one disobedient to Christ, but it wouldn't, under any circumstances, make one a slave owner.
* * * * *
Now lets look at what bro. Thomas, in 1866, called the "Christadelphian theory and practice which separates us" from the other reformist groups. One of those groups mentioned by bro. Thomas as separated by this theory was the Dowieites. Observe how this theory and practice worked out when bro. Roberts received correspondence from an ecclesia which refused to separate from the Dowieites, in the lifetime of bro. Thomas. The ecclesia was the Aberdeen ecclesia, which bro. Roberts refers to as his "native" ecclesia, as that is where he first made contact with the truth.
When the Christadelphians separated from the Dowieites, all who wished to have fellowship with Christadelphians separated from the Dowieites. This is our point of difference with the Nicodemites. They say it was OK for bro. Roberts home ecclesia (Birmingham, Temperance Hall) to separate, but you can't separate from sound brethren who refuse to honor your separation. But bro. Roberts did. Here is his account of his meeting with Aberdeen.
So here is bro. Roberts, doing exactly what Nicodemites tell us we can't do. Bro. Roberts separates from Aberdeen, while recognizing them to be sound, because they extend fellowship where God has forbidden it. Here is his writing about Aberdeen, and their criticism of him, and their decision:The Editor’s refusal to break bread with the Aberdeen brethren on account of their connection with the Dowieites, was the subject of warm debate at two meetings. He was closely taken to task for his conduct, which he defended on principles familiar to all who are alive to the bearing of the truth. His first answer was that the Dowieites were unfaithful to the truth.
"...The same anxiety about preserving the truth in its purity from the corrupting influence of its loose professors, is manifest in his letter to Titus. Defining the qualifications of an elder, he says he must be a man “holding fast the faithful word, as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine to exhort and convince the gainsayers. For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped * * * A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject .”—( Titus 1:9–11 ; 3:10 .) To the same purpose are the words of Jude. “It was needful for me to write to you that ye should contend earnestly for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints ; for there are certain men crept in unawares, &c. —(verses 3–4 .) The Aberdeen brethren and the Dowieites themselves have shown their apprehension of these apostolic precepts by separating from the sects and denominations of the orthodox world. Upon what principle then can they object to the attitude of Christadelphians towards the Dowieites, on the supposition that the latter corrupt the truth? It is entirely beside the mark to raise the cry of schism; this is a false issue. It is not a question between schism and unity among those holding the truth; it is a question of truth versus error among those professing the former. The Dowieites are consistent in the position they maintain, supposing that their doctrines are the truth: but the Aberdeen brethren have not even that feeble plea. They believe the Dowieites to be wrong in many of their doctrines, and yet they advocate connection with them, although justifying separation from the sects. They do so on the ground that the Dowieites have a great part of the truth: but this is not a principle that can be scripturally defended. There is no authority for making one part of the truth less important than another. A reception of the truth on one point will not condone its rejection on another. Can we suppose that the Judaizers had no part of the truth? Did the Gnostics who denied that Christ had come in the flesh, reject the kingdom of God? Did not the unbelieving Jew hold the truth in great part? Yet Paul counselled withdrawal from them all. Nothing short of fidelity to the whole truth can be accepted as a safe policy. “The things concerning the kingdom of God,” and “those things that concern our Lord Jesus Christ,” in their scriptural amplitude must be the measure and standard of fellowship. Those who go for less than this must be left to themselves; in this they are not judged; they are only subjected to the action of another man’s conception of duty, and are left at perfect liberty to organize themselves on whatever they may conceive to be a scriptural basis.
Two years later, bro. Roberts maintained the same position.
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.
We have already seen, in the above 1866 letter from bro. Thomas, that true Christadelphians had no fellowship with the Dowieites in Britain, or the Benjamites and Brethren of the West (those who were followers of Benjamin Wilson and ultimated into the Church of God of the Abrahamic Covenant) in the US. The refusal to publish the Aberdeen correspondence was not a whim. Bro. Roberts had made himself very clear, as published in the Christadelphian under the title, "A Tour of Scotland." Now, lest anyone think bro. Roberts did not have the blessing of bro. Thomas in his actions as editor, here is bro. Thomas' own words about bro. Roberts, in the next to the last year of his life, 1870.
Christadelphian 1870, pg. 191 I don’t now recollect the various places I went to on the occasion of my second visit to the country. It has not made a very distinct impression on my recollection, but it has all contributed to the development of what exists at the present time. At that time, the meeting in Birmingham did not, I think, exceed a dozen persons. I recollect when I was in Nottingham, I saw brother Roberts who had come from Huddersfield on a visit to meet me there. I suggested to brother Roberts that it would be much better for him to come to Birmingham than to waste his sweetness on the desert air of Huddersfield. I thought something could be done in Birmingham. There was a nucleus here that I thought would work with him. I also suggested he should commence a periodical. You know the rest. He did come, and he did commence a periodical, and he has been working faithfully in your midst from that time to this. His influence, diffusing itself from this as a common centre, is felt in various parts of England and America. That which has given him influence has been his faithfulness to the uncompromising proclamation of what he conscientiously believes to be the truth. This is the sort of influence we need at the present time. We don’t want numbers based upon a sandy foundation. We want numbers—many or few—based upon the rock of the divine testimony—men who understand what they are about, and are able to tell others what they have believed and done, and why.
1870 Excerpts from bro. Thomas
We know some brethren have asked why Nicodemite brethren refer back to the 1851 writings of bro. Thomas, since they themselves do not agree with what bro. Thomas has written, nor are they prepared to fellowship along the lines then recommended by bro. Thomas. The answer given shows that they do not truly believe bro. Thomas ever changed his position. In brief, the answers are:
1. I think it essential to demonstrate that brother John Thomas did not treat "the doctrine of fellowship" as a first principle as some Christadelphian Fellowships claim it is.
2. As strong as his expositions and denunciations against error were, he never viewed the breaking of bread as a matter of all-at-the-table-fellowship "without exception".
3. Brother Thomas' principles and arguments concerning excommunication were right in the early quotes and he never changed on that point. The missing part of the equation was the principle of withdrawal and when to practice it.
The question becomes if bro. Thomas did not think fellowship was a first principle, why did he remain in association with bro. Roberts, even praising him for maintaining the purity of the truth, through all of bro. Roberts work in separating from Aberdeen, as exhibited above? Of course, he couldn't have. He should have condemned bro. Roberts who clearly did elevate fellowship to a first principle in this case, when he separated from Aberdeen while recognizing there was no error there. Their only error was that they continued to fellowship with Dowieites.
On his second point, there simply can be no question, by comparing his writings in 1851, with his later writings in Eureka I:328 and in the 1866 Christadelphian dealing with the Benjamites, that his position in regards breaking bread with error changed from 1851. In 1851 he had no problem with it. In 1870, he said he would refuse to do so, if it meant separation from his nearest and dearest.
For a consideration of "excommunication," please go here. Finally, there was more missing from bro. Thomas' explanation of fellowship in 1851, than simply withdrawal. He argued that there was nothing wrong with fellowshipping brethren who came to a knowledge of the truth, but believed their baptism as an immortal soul believing baptist, was adequate for salvation. He argued that he had no authority to judge, whether or not certain men (men who believed trinity, denied the kingdom on earth, and embraced the immortality of the soul) were fit for fellowship. He argued that breaking bread was not a test of fellowship. He argued that he would maintain this behavior till Christ returned. So clearly he was wrong on many things beside just withdrawal.
But a major part of what we are discussing is the matter of withdrawal and how to practice it. And yes, it goes without saying that he was wrong on the matter of withdrawal. Yes, it is true that many subjects, usually attributing to us things we do not believe, have been raised. But at the root of it all, our differences simply boil down to withdrawal, and when and probably more importantly how to practice it.
But we can see why it is that this matter of the early writings are introduced. Our Nicodemite brethren cling to some of these ideas, then transpose them onto his 1870 excerpts, to make bro. Thomas appear to give credence to ideas he had long gone away from, as proved by other writings of his from that time frame.
Three brief excerpts from bro. Thomas are advanced to cast a different light on the foregoing. Even though the items are quite brief, they do not alter any of the foregoing, in any way. The first two excerpts especially, confirm the actions taken by the Berean brethren, when placed in their context..
The first and the second portions of paragraphs quoted are from the same article, though reversed. The second comes first, and a very important section is ignored. But the entire article exhibits the true doctrine of fellowship, and gives context to the excerpted quotes. The entire section is as follows (as has been on this web site for years.) I have emboldened the excerpt which is advanced to justify fellowshipping error.
Chdn. 1870, pg. 16-17 It is not my province to issue bulls of excommunication, but simply to shew what the truth teaches and commands. I have to do with principles, not men. If anyone say that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh common to us all, the apostle John saith that that spirit or teacher is not of God; is the deceiver and the anti-Christ, and abides not in the doctrine of Christ; and is therefore not to be received into the house, neither to be bidden God-speed.—( 1 John 4:3 , 2 ; 2 Ep. 7 , 9 , 10 .) I have nothing to add to or take from this. It is the sanctifying truth of the things concerning the “name of Jesus Christ.” All whom the apostles fellowshipped, believed it; and all in the apostolic ecclesias who believed it not—and there were such—had not fellowship with the apostles, but opposed their teachings; and when they found they could not have their own way, John says “They went out from us, but they—the anti-Christ—were not of us; for if they had been of us (of our fellowship), they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” —( 1 John 2:19 .) The apostles did not cast them out, but they went out of their own accord, not being able to endure sound doctrine.—( 2 Tim. 4:3 .)
Then preach the word, &c., and exhort with all long-suffering and teaching. This is the purifying agency. Ignore brother this and brother that in said teaching; for personalities do not help the argument. Declare what you as a body believe to be the apostles’ doctrines. Invite fellowship upon that basis alone. If upon that declaration, any take the bread and wine, not being offered by you, they do so upon their own responsibility, not on yours. If they help themselves to the elements, they endorse your declaration of doctrine, and eat condemnation to themselves. For myself, I am not in fellowship with the dogma that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh, or that he died as a substitute to appease the fury and wrath of God. The love of God is manifest in all that He has done for man. “When all wish to do what is right,” the right surely is within their grasp. I trust you will be able to see it from what is now before you. And may the truth preside over all your deliberations, for Christ Jesus is the truth, and dwells with those with whom the truth is. Where this is I desire to be.
If I believe the truth as it is in the Jesus Paul preached, and fellowship the doctrine of an immaculate Jesus Paul did not preach, in celebrating the death of the latter with those who repudiate the maculate body set forth by God for a propitiation, is affirming one thing and practising another. Those who hold Paul’s doctrine, ought not to worship with a body that does not. This is holding with the hare and running with the hounds—a position of extraordinary difficulty. Does not such an one love the hounds better than the hare? When the hounds come upon the hare, where will he be? No; if I agree with you in doctrine, I will forsake the assembling of myself with a body that opposes your doctrine, although it might require me to separate from the nearest and dearest. No good is effected by compromising the principles of the truth; and to deny that Jesus came in sinful flesh, is to destroy the sacrifice of Christ.
JOHN THOMAS.
The above is nothing that the Berean Christadelphians could not, and would not say. We forsake the assembling of ourselves with those who destroy the Sacrifice of Christ in any number of the ways now extant in the Central body. We will not worship with them, or with any who will fellowship them. We declare as a body what we believe. We do so in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith, and our understanding of the meaning of that document is further explained in the Berean Restatement. There is no excuse for anyone not to understand our position, when they fellowship with us.
Still, we have had individuals who change their minds and cease to accept our teachings, but still take the emblems with us, unknown to us, for a period of time. When we discover this, our teaching generally drives them out. (In every case I'm familiar with, they have gone out from us to Central, where they are welcomed. Then they cast stones at us, that we are not very loving since we refuse to accept their views.) To the best of my knowledge, we have never had to withdraw from an individual over this, that did not leave the meeting first, since 1923.
We have no fellowship with those ideas, and are not in fellowship with those ideas. If they take the emblems, uninvited, we bear no responsibility in such matters. But here we run into the highly technical interpretation such as we have observed previously which it is believed contradicts the teachings of bro. Thomas. Among the many teachings invented for us, is that we believe fellowship is some mechanical conduit by which sins are imputed to and through each other, and ultimately to Christ and God. Fellowship is no such thing. We believe no such thing. Fellowship is a doctrine to be observed with strict obedience. And in the course of carrying out this doctrine, it is necessary from time to time to remain technically in fellowship with error, while we work through various problems. But we have no fellowship, in any true sense of the word, with the error. We don't support it, or give it standing at all. We condemn it! We teach against it. And if we can't teach it away, then separation will occur, either by the errorist leaving us, unable to stand sound doctrine; or by us ultimately withdrawing from it.
Bro. Thomas' teachings of 1851, that we can break bread and not be in fellowship with errorists, are advanced, and then transposed on bro. Thomas' later words in a very technical manner, to make it appear that bro. Thomas at the end of his life, is still teaching that we are not in fellowship with those we break bread with. He obviously is not. He is talking about men who break bread with you without disclosing that they disagree with you. If this was not the case, why does bro. Thomas point out that the apostles believed they could not have fellowship with the false brethren, in 1870, and all who would fellowship the apostles must also believe that?
And while I can honestly say that I have no spiritual fellowship with such teachings, I do acknowledge that I have technically been in fellowship, for a very short while, while the matter is explored and an effort at teaching is engaged at reclaiming those who have come to hold false views on the nature and sacrifice of Christ. So were the apostles. So was bro. Thomas. And not only has that happened, but it was the correct thing to do according to the doctrine of fellowship. But we can only be said to be in "fellowship" with such doctrines, in a very sterile and technical sense of the word, for I have never cooperated in said teaching, or permitted said teaching in our assemblies. I've even been accused of "driving off the Central brethren" from our gatherings, when they introduced their teachings, and were offended, when the truth was set before them. I didn't drive them off. I did nothing but calmly explain the truth. They could not stand sound doctrine, so they left in a huff. So the technical "fellowship" that exists in the transitional stage in not truly fellowship. Hence bro. Thomas' statement is correct, that we have no fellowship with such, though for a time, they might be among us.
It is clear from the above quote by bro. Thomas, that he was not dealing with the technicalities our Nicodemite brother imagines, but the true meaning of fellowship. Bro. Thomas quotes the apostle John: "They went out from us...". Did they not first have to be "of us" to be able to go "out from us?" And if they were of us, and partaking of the emblems, did not the ecclesia for awhile, bid them "Godspeed?" How else could they have gone out?
Look back at the section of Eureka I have already quoted.
"It is Jezebel’s table, at which a saint cannot eat without having fellowship with the demons she funeralizes to glory, which is sin."
A saint cannot eat at Jezebel's table without fellowshipping with the demons, etc. If the errorist is knowingly permitted to eat at the table with us, which does happen from time to time, when the ecclesia is in a transitory state due to the introduction of error, we are technically in fellowship with them for a time. But it is only a technicality. That time will soon end, and the errorist will be regained by sound doctrine, or withdrawn from. Hence, our withdrawal from Central is not because error occurs in Central. It occurs amongst us as well. It is because error is welcomed in Central. From the context of the whole quote, it is clear that this transitional period is not the subject of the article, but rather, can we continue to knowingly fellowship false doctrine? Bro. Thomas' conclusion is different from our Central brethren's. He says that by their intentional association with the errorist, their position becomes holding with the hare, but running with the hound. Which of course, it is. One Nicodemite web site quotes extensively from the bro. Growcott-hare on his web site to explain the nature and sacrifice of Christ, but runs with the John Martin-hounds. The venom with which he writes towards us already indicates he has grown an association with those hounds, more than we might normally have expected.
The third quote is in direct answer to a question. The matter reads:
Chdn. 1870, pg. 155 "Would you have any fellowship with those who believe or teach these things? Answer: 'My fellowship is with the apostles; they had many brethren who were bewitched and disgraced the truth.'" (Answer by John Thomas, The Christadelphian, 1870, 155)
Again, how could anyone answer these things any different? Could we have fellowship with these men who distort and deny the nature and sacrifice of Christ? Not by design, no. Our fellowship is with the apostles. And the apostles taught that with such, "no, not to eat." But there have always been, and will always be brethren crept in unawares. These are those brethren who were bewitched and disgraced the truth. These sooner or later show themselves, for they are of the world, and their affections are for the world. It was true of the Apostles fellowship, and it will certainly be true of ours. The difference is when they show themselves, the matter will be resolved in favor of the truth in the Bereans, but not in Central.
Note that in none of the 1870 quotes, does bro. Thomas ever suggest that it is acceptable to knowingly remain in fellowship with error. This is the point of our controversy. After 1851, bro. Thomas never again suggests that it is acceptable behavior to fellowship with error. That is why the 1851 quotes must be resurrected. Since the 1870 quotes never permit, or even excuse fellowship with error, the 1851 quotes are joined with them to provide an inference that bro. Thomas is suggesting that fellowshipping error is acceptable, since we are not really in fellowship with it anyway. Attempting to infer things from his early writings onto his later writings, inferences made against his later teachings, and against the explanation of his change in opinion by bro. Roberts adds nothing to this discussion.
The reason for our separation from the Central brethren is clearly that they have, in their body, those who teach false doctrine on this most fundamental of doctrines, and these brethren are accepted throughout the fellowship. These are not crept into Central unawares. They are the editors of the most prominent magazines. They are not stealing around, taking the emblems unknown to others. They stand proud at the Bible Schools, while the "fellowship within a fellowship" Central brethren slink away for their own private breaking of bread. I was shown a letter where one of the errorists (bro. John Knowles) boasted about how many invitations he had to speak throughout the brotherhood, while how few a brother sound in the faith, bro. Graham Mansfield had. To argue that bre. Thomas and Roberts would have found this acceptable is not a reasonable position. The Berean Fellowship fully embraces the mature and learned teaching of bro. Thomas. Of this main principle, bro. Thomas says:
"If anyone say that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh common to us all, the apostle John saith that that spirit or teacher is not of God; is the deceiver and the anti-Christ, and abides not in the doctrine of Christ; and is therefore not to be received into the house, neither to be bidden God-speed.—( 1 John 4:3 , 2 ; 2 Ep. 7 , 9 , 10 .) I have nothing to add to or take from this. It is the sanctifying truth of the things concerning the 'name of Jesus Christ.' All whom the apostles fellowshipped, believed it; and all in the apostolic ecclesias who believed it not—and there were such—had not fellowship with the apostles,"
To the Central brethren who claim allegiance to bro., Thomas' fellowship position, do you agree with this? Will you insist that your ecclesias refuse to fellowship those who err on the Sacrifice of Christ, such Central brethren as you document on your own web sites? Bro. Thomas says that all in the first century who had fellowship with the Apostles, did refuse them. Bro. Thomas also says that those who did not so believe, and who received such men, "had not fellowship with the apostles." We agree with bro. Thomas.
A fourth Excerpt
One Nicodemite web site has included a fourth excerpt among those writings he thinks proves his position, and it is from an 1858 Herald. He offers this without comment, and I'm not sure I really understand why it is included. It is a good quote, and it is also found in Eureka written 2 years later. The excerpt is as follows:
Herald 1858, pg. 125-126 When John was in Patmos, the Judaic apostasy as leaven was leavening the whole lump. It was on this account that the seven letters were written to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea. It was an era of contending elements, from which a new civil and ecclesiastical order of things was to " be established and set upon her own foundation in the land of the Great Iron Teeth." At the epoch of the Apocalypse, the Iron Teeth were a pagan power, and ready to rend all that were not pagans. The Jews were divided between the Synagogue and the Church, and though the former boasted in Moses and the latter in Jesus, the Iron Teeth regarded them all as Jews and was the enemy of both. But in John's day, the Jews of the Church were divisible into two classes ; first, those who were Jews inwardly, without regard to flesh, and secondly, those who said they were Jews, but were liars. The first class were in scriptural fellowship with the apostle, but rapidly falling into the minority, so that in Sardis, for example," a few names " remained undefiled. It was the second class of Jews that constituted the great majority of those who passed current by the name of Christian. It was these who labored indefatigably in building a house for the Harlot of the Ephah. They became a powerful political faction in the land of the enemy, and having found a warrior to their mind in Constantine, they placed themselves under his leadership, and in A.D. 324 became the sole ruling power " in the land of Shinar," as defined.
Presumably, this has been introduced to suggest that the two classes of individuals resided together in the Church, and that the minority who were in the Apostle's fellowship, and the majority of brethren who made up the Synagogue of the Satan were all in fellowship together. But it is clear from the writings of bro. Thomas as to what he thought. He wrote in Eureka:
Eureka I: 270 "The name Christians comprehended all the adherents of Balaam and Jezebel, whether Ebionites, Gnostics or by whatever name or denomination of heresy, they might be known. The 'real christians' had NO FELLOWSHIP WITH SUCH; though among them, as in Pergamos, the poison of the serpent might be detected. The ecclesia and the synagogue of the Satan were institutions as distinct as they are now; for in the nineteenth century a true believer of the gospel of the kingdom is against all who have not obeyed the same, yet a congregation of 'real christians' may have in it some who are not true, as at Pergamos; these WILL SOONER OR LATER SHOW THEMSELVES, for their sympathies are fleshly, and they become impatient of principles which they regard as harsh, uncharitable, and severe."
This is identically the way we deal with those brethren who have been called, but are unfaithful to their calling. We are distinct institutions from them. We have no fellowship with them. We do not suffer their Jezebel's to seduce the servants of Deity in any of our ecclesias. Yet, as noted before, the true believers may have in it, those whose sympathies are with the errorists. These, as bro. Thomas observes, will sooner or later show themselves. It is when they do that we become responsible to resolve the matter, in as loving a manner as the situation will allow, but always focused that the end result must be the purity of the faith.
* * * * *
Bro. Thomas and Eureka
The Apocalypse was not written for everyone. The first verse indicates that it is only written for the servants of Deity. Those who try to develop doctrine from the Apocalypse, before they have mastered the divine teachings from Jesus and the apostles, are destined to fail. This is the problem our Nicodemite brethren faces when they try to develop a teaching from the Apocalypse that goes directly against the writings of the apostle Paul.
The ecclesias of Revelations are not literal ecclesias. They are symbols of the condition of all Christianity over the first 280 years of Christianity. Bro. Thomas at times, speaks of the ecclesial state, as if it is one ecclesia, and this has led some to misunderstand his teachings on fellowship. It wasn't one ecclesia. It wasn't one fellowship. It was many fellowships made up of all who called themselves Christians. There was the assembling of the faithful brethren in the Apostle's Fellowship, also called the Antipas Fellowship. But side by side with them, were the Synagogue of Satan, made up of Nicolaitans, Balaamites, Jezebelites, etc. These errorists began as "called out ones" in the ecclesias though they became unfaithful to their calling. But these brethren existed in distinct organizations. That is not to say that all members of the Synagogue of Satan were "called out ones" because they weren't. As the Synagogue of Satan became more and more corrupt, then pagans who had never been called to the truth could feel quite at home. But that is not the way the apostate ecclesias started. But the point to keep in mind, in understanding Revelations, is that the Synagogue of Satan and the Apostles fellowship were not in the same fellowship. Of these organizations, bro. Thomas wrote (as quoted above)
"The name Christians comprehended all the adherents of Balaam and Jezebel, whether Ebionites, Gnostics or by whatever name or denomination of heresy, they might be known. The 'real christians' had NO FELLOWSHIP WITH SUCH; though among them, as in Pergamos, the poison of the serpent might be detected. The ecclesia and the synagogue of the Satan were institutions as distinct as they are now; for in the nineteenth century a true believer of the gospel of the kingdom is against all who have not obeyed the same,"
This is the point so missed by those advancing the Revelations as a guide for how fellowship should be treated. The Baalamites and the Antipas existed in the Pergamian state, but they had no fellowship with each other. They were "distinct organizations." Jezebel was permitted by the Star Presbytyre of the Satan's Synagogues, to teach Satan's depths, but the Apostolic Fellowship, did not "know" or fellowship them, and as such were protected from them.
The Apostolic State
From the death of Jesus to around 72 AD, the state of the brotherhood was that of the Apostolic Fellowship. It was a time when error was not tolerated. Error arose in the ecclesias to try them, as testified by the apostle's epistles, but it was condemned by the Apostles, and not tolerated since the Apostolic ecclesias obeyed the apostolic admonition to have no fellowship with error. Error was not tolerated in the Apostolic age, or later in the apostolic ecclesias of the various states. Bro. Thomas wrote of the Apostolic age:
Eureka I pg. 427 THE APOSTOLIC STATE The spiritual condition of the ecclesias in this state of things may be learned from the writings of the apostles and others as extant in the New Testament. 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;” and it worked by love and purified the heart— Gal. 5:6 ; Acts 15:9 . There was among christians, as the rule, a perfectly unselfish devotion to the interests of the truth, and to the well being of one another. Their works, labor, and patience, were without rebuke. They labored for the name, and did not faint, although the labor endangered their lives, liberty, and goods. The rule was “poor” in this world, rich in faith;” the reverse of this was the exception. When they received the word, they received it gladly and were immersed; and then “continued steadfastly in the apostle’s teaching and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers;” and while in their “first love,” “the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul; and great grace was upon them all.” In this primitive condition of affairs, the ecclesias were all the heritages, hoi kleroi , or clergy , of God, constituting “the flock;” while “the rulers” or “elders” were its feeders under the supremacy of the Chief Shepherd at the right hand of the majesty in the heavens. These ruling brethren took the oversight of the flock, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; and they demeaned themselves, not as lords and reverends, but as examples to the generality of their brethren in the faith.
This is the condition of the ecclesias among which the apostles walked. Problems arose, to be sure, of which the epistles are a testimony. But the problems were resolved by obedience to apostolic teachings regards fellowship. Those going out from the Apostle's Fellowship were at first the weak and poor, but they were also the more aggressive, and they ultimately gained the ascendancy. When our Central brethren look at the ecclesias in the Apostolic Fellowship, they see the error warned against. They do not see, except for in the case of the adulterous brother of Corinth, and the end of "schisms in the body" in Corinth, the end result, which was a purification of the ecclesia from sin, in obedience of the divine command. We are told that Ephesus was never told to withdraw from Corinth. But, as the historical states show, there was no need. The ecclesias received the apostle's guidance, and obeyed it. The Nikolaitans were never permitted a foothold. But those leaving the body formed a separate body, which the Scriptures call the Synagogue of the Satan, and this continued to attack the apostle's fellowship.
Christadelphians should understand the meaning of "satan." It merely means the adversary, in this case, an adversary to the truth. The synagogue of Satan are the congregations of brethren who have among it, those who have become adversaries to the principles of the truth.
Eur. I: 430 While, then, christendom was, as we have described it in the beginning, pure and uncorrupt in faith and practice, it had sadly degenerated at the time when the apostles had all finished their course, except John. The Apostolical State of the Body was not, therefore, all rose-colored, but was defaced by many unsightly blemishes. The seeds of death and corruption had been sown in it by the enemy; the germ of a Body of Death had been deposited in its womb; even of that Body Ecclesiastic styled popularly in our day “ the Church ,” and apocalyptically, “the Mother of Harlots and of all the Abominations of the Earth.”
The Ephesian State
With the seed deposited, the plant begins to develop, and it finds growing room in the malaise of the Ephesian State. The seeds are not the fruit. Where the fruit was obvious, the apostles counseled withdrawal. But just as Jesus fellowshipped Judas till the betrayal, so must the seeds of the serpent be permitted, till the fruit comes forth.
Eur. I: 329 What precise number of years “the heritages of the Deity,” continued in this happy and uncorrupted condition, it is impossible to define. We know when the state began, but cannot tell the first year when the devil, or the flesh, began to pervert the truth. We may remark safely, that there is no well defined chronological line between the Apostolical State and the Ephesian State, by which it was succeeded. There was “One Body,” consisting of many ecclesias, pertaining to the Apostolical State; and before that body could be said to have passed into the Ephesian State, the Angel Presbyteries of the ecclesias or heritages generally must have responded to the apocalyptical description of the angel at Ephesus. This transition would therefore be gradual; for on the supposition, that “men speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them,” first arose in the Ephesian Angel, it would have taken several years to leaven all or a majority of the ecclesias extant with their tradition so as to give character to the Body. The entrance of the body into a new phase would be progressive; the process would be insidious; a change would come over it, and be discerned, not so much in the growing from month to month, as in the growth accomplished after a lapse of years.
The ecclesias then moved from the Apostolic Fellowship into the state of the Ephesian. Of this condition bro. Thomas records:
Eur. I: 425 In the Ephesian state of christendom there was strength, labor, patience, no faint-heartedness, hatred of Nikolaitanism, and intolerance of evil-doers;
The Smyrnean State and the Development of Satan's Synagogue
During the Ephesian state, error was not tolerated, but the process was more mechanical, than a love of the purity of the Scriptures. Hence the admonition that they had lost their first love. Nicolaitans were the vanquishers of the peoples. I personally believe that Nicolaitans are those who denied that Jesus had come in flesh common to mankind, for that is the doctrine which ruins a man's salvation, vanquishing him. It also seems to be the first attack on the truth. If you can't see sin in the flesh of Jesus, condemned there, and hung on the tree; you can't understand how God is righteous, which is the only basis for salvation given in the Scriptures. What doctrine can be more of a vanquisher of mankind than this? And we know it was a doctrine on the rise, as the Ephesian state is ushered in in the days of the later writings of John. With the fire and love of truth gone from their consciences, the way for error to be tolerated was being opened. The ecclesias moved to the Smyrnean State. Of this state bro. Thomas wrote:
Eur. I: 434 To draw gentlemen and persons of liberal education to pay attention to christianity, appears to have been his [Justin, of the Smyrnean State] chief employment.” A right view of things would have convinced Justin of the futility of his expedients. It is “the poor in this world,” and the simple hearted, not “gentlemen” and “philosophers,” that God hath chosen to be heirs of his kingdom. In this policy Justin shows a departure from the true apostolic mind so prominent in Paul’s writings. Justin’s example was pernicious in giving sanction to the union of heathen philosophy with the teaching of Christ and his apostles. There is no agreement between them; and where the union is tolerated, it invariably results in the corruption or extinction from the mind, of the spirit and teaching of the word.
In the Smyrnean State, the called out ones are now dividing into two separate and distinct bodies. The one, the Apostolic ecclesias which is a continuance of the original first century ecclesias, the other, the Synagogues of Satan. Brother Thomas correctly observed that between these two groups of called ones, there can be no union tolerated! His choice of the word "union" is directly to the point. Of course there could be no unity, for the Apostles ecclesias, and the ecclesias that tolerated adversarial positions to the truth, could not possibly get along. Unity was impossible, then as now. But "union" was possible. If the holders of the truth are willing to wink at their principles attacked and condemned, then "union" with the adversary can exist. But note bro. Thomas' opinion of this union, and "toleration." Toleration leads invariably to the corruption of the truth. The apostolic ecclesias are commended because they try those who say they are Jews (Christadelphians) but are not. With the two lines of called out ones clearly defined, the ecclesias wax worse, as it moves into the Pergamian State.
Where did the Synagogue of the Satan come from? This is important to understand. The term is intimidating, and Christadelphians of today are reluctant to consider other Christadelphians to be of the synagogue of the Satan. But this adversarial church came out of the Apostolic ecclesia. They were those of whom John said, "They went out from us." This adversarial organization, stood against the true ecclesia, but in it had many brethren, even those so faithful to have been granted Holy Spirit gifts. Bro. Thomas wrote of this:
Eur. I: 232 Such a synagogue, then, came to be a fit and proper emblem of those “Christians,” falsely so-called, who in Smyrna “said they were Jews, but were not.” John, referring to these spurious Christians in divers places, says, in 1 Ep. 2:19 , “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us they would doubtless have continued with us; but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” This emigration from the apostolic fellowship became “the synagogue of the Satan,” and was afterwards distinguished by the assumed title of “the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church.” The leaders of this schism transferred all the customs of the old Jewish Synagogue—System into their pseudo-Christian “church;” and as they were not slow in getting the majority—for “they were of the world, and therefore they spoke of the world, and the world heard them;” for it hears and loves its own—they turned upon those who continued faithful to the apostolic teaching, and denounced and oppressed them as “heretics.” The leaders of this schism erected themselves into a distinct order from the laioi , or people, now styled “the laity” and “laymen” —men of the people. They usurped to themselves the title of ho kleros , “the clergy,” or the lot, portion, or heritage; on the assumption that, while the people belonged to their spiritual guides, said guides are the special lot, or inheritance, of God! Thus, “clergy” is defined “the body of men set apart by due ordination for the service of God;” and a “clergyman,” as “one in holy orders; not a laick.” But, though this distinction of clergy and laity is universal in “the synagogue of the Satan,” there is no such distinction in the Ecclesia, or Body of Christ.
Bro Roberts made a similar observation:
Nazereth Revisited, pg 148 We are living at the end of a disastrous history. As the Israelitish nation departed from divine ways after the death of Joshua, and the elders who overlived Joshua, so the community founded by the apostles changed, when the apostles and their co-labourers had passed away, from being “the House of God, the pillar and ground of the truth” into “the synagogue of Satan,” whose constituents “turned away their ears from the truth, and turned unto fables,” as Paul had foretold ( Acts xx. 30 ; 2 Tim. iv. 4 ).
The Synagogue of Satan tolerated sound brethren who were willing to make a union with her, when they were in the minority and could do little about them. Besides, it assisted her end in claiming to be Jews, (but were not,) to have unfaithful (in fellowship) "Jews" in union with them. But where they had the majority, they exercised their control to eliminate the truth from their synagogue. John, writing in the Ephesian State, though as bro. Thomas says, pregnant with the Smyrnean seeds, (remember that the lines of these states are not distinct, but do overlap) wrote of Diotrophes who refused to receive those of the Apostle's fellowship, and cast them out of the ecclesia. Clearly then, the Synagogue of the Satan was in John's day, powerful enough to resist the true brethren, and cast them out of their synagogues, while extending an open door to Nicolaitans and Balaamites and Jezebels of all hues.
The Pergamian State
With the separate organization established among the called out ones, the corruption now was stepped up, and paganism is merged into Christianity, through its able teacher Balac. Writing of the Pergamian State, bro. Thomas wrote:
Eur. I: 438-439 This man, Clemens, besides his employment in the office of catechist, was made a presbyter in the ecclesia at Alexandria. Little is known of his life, and the time of his death is uncertain; and certain it is, that little else than evil could accrue to the saints from the ministrations of such a perverted mind.
He undertook to delineate a perfect christian, which, being the creation of his pago-christian eclecticism was just such a christian as would please the carnal mind, full of stoical rhapsodies, and the crotchetty asceticism of the flesh. After he had created him, he called him Gnosticus ; but the Spirit in the writing to the presbytery at Pergamos, styled him Nikolaitos , or a vanquisher of the people, like his great prototype Balaam, who loved the wages of unrighteousness, and placed stumblingblocks in the people’s way, by which they were caused to fall. The Rev. Nikolaitos Gnosticus is the beau ideal of a modern “divine.”
As Balac cast a stumbling block before Israel, by intermarrying them to the Baalites, so the modern Balac created a pago-christian eclecticism, as bro. Thomas names it, by which Christianity and paganism begin to be blended, or married. "Antipas" is being slain in this period, but Balaam is increasing in power and in numbers. The introducing and blending of pagan principles, made it possible for true pagans who had never been of the "ecclesia" or "called out ones" to enter the Synagogue.
Antipas, of course, means "against all" and so the true brethren of the Apostolic Fellowship were. They were against the Balaamites, and against the Nicolaitans, having no fellowship with them, just as Moses forbid fellowship with them in the wilderness, destroying those who would. Of Antipas bro. Thomas wrote:
Eur. I: 288 The Satan of Pergamos is still prosperous in the enjoyment of the lusts of the flesh and the pride of life; with a dominion coextensive with christendom. Their church is large, and embraces within its pale all sects, and parties, names and denominations, except Antipas; who is still, as in apostolic times, against all . Antipas, who holds fast the name and denies not the faith of Christ, has no fellowship for any of them; but protests against them all as the Satan.
Eur. I: 242 But their “works,” which were righteous, being manifest in the presence of “the Satan” and of “the Diabolos,” would be sure to bring upon them frequent renewals of their malignant and dangerous attacks. The repudiation of “the Satan’s” claims to the christian name, secured to them the enmity of their “synagogue;” whose members are scandalized at an earnest, and uncompromising contention for the faith as originally delivered to the Saints by the apostles— Jude 3 . They call this “uncharitable,” and calculated to “do harm,” and to drive off respectable people from the truth; who, but for the ultraism of Antipas , which destroys the popularity and endangers the position, of all connected with him, would embrace the truth, swell the number of its adherents, and make it respected, if not esteemed, by the wealthy and honorable of the world. This has been “the Satan’s” desire from the beginning until now. They are not so much opposed to the truth as an abstraction; but the consequences of a bold, straightforward, and uncompromising statement and advocacy of it, they hate, and detest with unmitigated bitterness and disgust. This state of mind and policy with respect to the truth on the part of the Satan’s synagogue of “all christendom,” establishes and develops “enmity” between the Seed of the Woman, or true apocalyptic Jews, that is, Christians; and the Seed of the Serpent, or real apocalyptic liars, “who say they are Jews,” or Christians, “and are not, but do lie.” This enmity subsisting between true and spurious christians, caused the Satanists “to betray” the others, as Jesus foretold they would in Matt. 24:10 . But, then, to whom should the Satan betray the saints of the ecclesias? This letter to the Smyrneans answers to “ ho diabolos ,” to the Diabolos , vulgarly styled, the Devil ; as it is written, “Behold, the Diabolos will cast of you into prison, that ye may be tempted.”
Pergamos was also plagued with the introduction of human philosophy and rules into the divine. A sense of what seemed right to the flesh, was permitted to contradict divine teaching. As examples of this, bro. Thomas writes:
Eur. I: 437 Tertullian, the first Latin writer among christians, flourished in the latter part of the second, and in the former part of the third century, at Carthage. But were it not for some light which he throws on the state of christianity in his own times, he would scarcely deserve to be distinctly noticed. Tradition with him was authoritative, and among the customs which it sanctioned in the Roman Africa was the very frequent signing of themselves with the sign of the cross .
He did not approve of flight in persecution, in direct contradiction of Christ’s instructions. He disapproved of second marriages, and called them adultery.
Human philosophy after the rudiments of the world formed the prominent corruption of the times of Tertullian and his contemporaries, and immediate successors. In the third century its effects appeared very distinctly.
It is impossible not to see that the Christadelphian movement finds itself at this time, in the Pergamian State. The separation between the adversarial ecclesias, and the Apostolic ecclesias is distinct and growing hostile. But Antipas is weak and dying, and those who would strengthen her, instead choose to use human philosophy to contradict divine teaching and attack the Antipas. Human teachings of "stay and fight the error" and the even larger and more significant one of condemning all "second marriages, calling them adultery" keep some in the Adversarial Church from separating and joining with Antipas to stand against all who would corrupt the truth. Jezebel is still held at bay, but her seeds in the "Endeavour Magazine" and in the missionary movement in general, show that the Thyatiran state has not arrived, but is on the threshold.
The human teaching that "second marriages are adultery" is a particularly curious issue in the Pergamian state. There are many faithful brethren who struggle with Christ's teaching on the subject, and the agreement given to Christ's teaching by bre. Thomas and Roberts. The leaders of the Synagogue know this, and use this as a tool to keep sound brethren in their midst, from separating. "Why separate and join Antipas in the Bereans or Old Paths/Wayfares," they say? "They permit adultery" (that is, second marriages, in harmony with Christ's permissions.) But if a faithful brother would separate to the Dawn or Lampstand, where second marriages are not permitted, the leaders of the Synagogue tell them, "why separate to Antipas in that group, for they don't keep the teachings of bre. Thomas and Roberts." The discussion perplexes Nicodemus, so he remains in the Church of the adversary. It was not in vain that Jesus pointed out that the children of this world are in many ways, wiser than the children of light.
The Thyatiran State
With the spiritual death of Antipas reducing his numbers and energy, (Antipas' death due to the synagogue of the adversaries turning them into the authorities, bro. Thomas notes) the Baalamites receive less resistance and merge into the more daring and corrupt Jezebels of Thyatira. Notice the emphasis bro. Thomas places on leaders of the people at this stage. Where the leaders are faithful, so are the people, but where the leaders are corrupt, so are the people. What kind of leaders, or editors of magazines, do they have in Central? Is Michael Ashton sound on the sacrifice of Christ? Is George Booker sound on fellowship and prophesy? And note that in the Thyatira state, "called out ones," though unfaithful to their calling, were still present, evidenced by their possession of Holy Spirit gifts.
Writing of this class, bro. Thomas says:
Eur. I: 321 The works of the Angel were conspicuous for “love, and service, and faith, and endurance.” Such an eldership must have been in the general in a spiritually healthy and efficient state; and which argued also a wholesome condition of the Spirit’s servants, called in the letter “my servants;” or, in the nomenclature of the synagogue of the Satan, “the laity.” It is “the leaders of the people cause them to err;” but where the leaders are faithful, this cause of error is wanting. The leaders corrupt the people, and when the people are corrupted, the seducers are enthroned and flourish; and the people come at length to delight in the corruption that destroys them.
The ecclesia among the Thyatirans became an arena upon which the two classes of leaders displayed themselves. The one class were characterized by a more abundant love, service, faith, and endurance in the days of John, than in the days when they were originally constituted the Star in Thyatira; while the other class was characterized by the idolatrous, meritricious, and murderous wife of Ahab. “the woman Jezebel,” who slew the prophets of Yahweh . The former were the Antipas in Thyatira whose devotedness sustained the truth against the machinations of all its enemies, heretical or pagan. Their “love” was not like that of the Satan’s—a love of “divine things” as far as agreeable to our animal instincts, and compatible with our worldly prosperity and peace. The love of the Antipas was the fulfilling of the law; the doing whatsoever Jesus had commanded, by which they evinced that they were his real friends. Many of the Satan’s synagogue who rejoiced in Jezebel, possessed spiritual gifts, and could speak with tongues, and prophesy, and understand mysteries, and had the knowledge, and the faith to remove mountains, and bestowed their goods to feed the poor; and not only in some cases gave their bodies to be burned; but in crowds rushed to martyrdom, till the pagan authorities refused to kill them; and told them to become their own executioners. Still, as Paul intimates, they were nothing; for they were destitute of “love.”
Note especially that this is where bro. Thomas' clear teaching on the memorials which I have quoted to demonstrate his mature position, comes from. It is in discussing Jezebel's table at Thyatira that bro. Thomas says, a saint cannot eat without sin.
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.
The Sardian State
The Christians, however, viewed themselves quite differently. Their corruption was embraced by many, so much so, that the true believers were so weak and pitiful, that they are merely described during this period, as the few. The teachings of Jezebel had completed the paganization of Christianity. Bro. Thomas wrote:
Eur. I: 443 The state of things deplored by Cyprian was that which resulted in the Sardian, characterized by the Spirit as a death-state. By the generation of professors contemporary with it, it was not so considered. Peace and prosperity reigned, as they regarded it; and they flattered themselves that they were in the enjoyment of great spiritual life— “thou hast a name that thou livest , and art dead.” The Deity did not see as they saw themselves. He pronounced them dead. That is, christianity was on the verge of extinction; or, as the Spirit explains in the next verse, “ready to die.” Very little of genuine apostolic christianity could be found among the christians in the last half of the third century. The Platonism of the Alexandrian school had corrupted every thing, and eaten out its vitals as a cancer; so that the christian mind was prepared for any absurdities and follies in the name of true religion, as in our day.
Eur. I: 444 In these few lines from Cyprian, what a striking illustration of the Sardian state of spiritual death is here! We learn from them that the leaders of the ecclesias believed, and therefore taught,
1. The immortality of the soul according to Plato;
2. That said soul, if but two or three days old, would be lost, if the infant owner were not immersed;
3. That immersion and grace, without faith, imparted remission of sins to infants;
4. That infants were damned for a sin committed by Adam over four thousand years before;
5. That immersion and grace in the case of infants was not for the remission of their own sins, but for that of another—of Adam. Hence, Adam must have been pardoned every time an infant was dipped and regenerated by “grace!”
6. That infant immersion was “spiritual circumcision.”
Eur. II: 228 Such was the state into which the ecclesias had fallen in the second half of the third century, against which Novatian protested. Many, in all the Roman empire—Christadelphians, in contrast to “Christians,” a name disgraced then as now—united with him in bearing a noble testimony against the prevailing corruption in the camp; and by so doing acquired the name of Novatianists. They were also termed Puritans , or in Greek, Cathari —a name bestowed on them by their adversaries, who reproached them for what they considered their excessive severity of discipline and exclusiveness.
The ecclesiastical historian, Socrates, says that “Novatius separated from the Roman Church because Cornelius the bishop received into communion believers who had sacrificed during the persecution which the emperor Decius had raised against the ecclesia. Having seceded on this account, on being afterwards elevated to the episcopacy by such prelates as entertained similar sentiments, he wrote to all the ecclesias insisting that they should not admit to the sacred mysteries those who had sacrificed; but exhorting them to repentance, leave the pardoning of their offence to God, who has the power to forgive all sin. These letters made different impressions on the parties in the various provinces to whom they were addressed, according to their several dispositions and judgments.
The few in Sardis, then could not possibly have fellowship with such men. I am always amazed when Sardis is advanced to justify false fellowship, for like bro. Thomas 1851 writings, it goes far beyond what any Christadelphian today, is willing to practice.
The Philadelphian State
The body was now ready for a brief rebirth before its total lapse into Laodiceanism, and that was the Philadelphian State. The persecution of Diocletion drove the members of the Adversaries Church back to the Pagan temples, for their own safety. Only the sincere, only those few members of the Apostolic Fellowship who survived are observed at Philadelphia.
Eur. II: 89-90 But apart from this Holy Apostolic Laodicean Catholic Apostasy, there was a community, comparatively small, that hated the deeds and doctrines of these Nikolaitanes and children of the woman Jezebel. It repudiated “the depths of the Satan as they taught;” and with “a little strength,” kept the word of the Spirit, and did not deny his name. This community of faithful ones was preserved from the hour of temptation which came upon the whole habitable to try them. These who stood aloof from the Apostasy, protested alike against “Catholics,” Jews and Pagans. They were zealous for “the faith once for all delivered to the saints,” and contended earnestly for it, both against their own “fellow-servants” and nominal “brethren,” who were fraternizing with the liberal non-professing world, and conspiring with them against the government; and against Pagan and Jewish clergies and their blasphemous and profane traditions with which they “destroyed the earth.” This Philadelphian community was in all things opposed to the Laodicean. Its members “walked after the Spirit,” or the truth; and through that spirit mortified the deeds of the body; while the Laodiceans, who had an overweening conceit of their own piety and spiritual intelligence, “walked after the flesh,” in the fashion universally illustrated in the practice of the pietists of all the “Names and Denominations of Christendom,” and of the “christian politicians,” “liberal christians,” and the political wire workers and pullers, of our day. The Philadelphian party had no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but reproved them. They had escaped from the corruptions of the world through lust, and devoted their energies to the making of their calling and election sure. They came out , therefore, from among the Laodiceans, that they might not be defiled by the uncleannesses of these unfaithful “fellow-servants and brethren,” and constituted what the Laodicean Catholics termed a Schism or Heresy.
The Laodicean State
Luke 18:6-8 And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith. And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?
The true ecclesia is weak and suffering. Meanwhile the synagogue of the adversaries are now rich in the world's goods, growing richer, and more numerous every day. Missionary programs boast that 80% of brethren now in Central, were not in Central prior to 1992. If this was the faith, then the question asked by Jesus would seem rather silly.
Go to, ye Nicodemites who pride yourselves in your understanding of Bible Prophesy! When did God bring His judgments on the earth? When the body was large, and rich, or when the body was poor, despicable, despised, and so small to not even be able to found?
The Preface to Anastasis
I was once warned, when still a young man, to be very wary of the way men attack you. They are often accusing you of the tendencies of their own characters. Whether or not this is true, I can’t say. What I can say is that if the Anastasis preface had not been so cut up, it would be clear what the subject was, and that it was not fellowship. In fact, fellowship is never mentioned in that preface. The quoted portion reads:
"I can only say for myself, that I had rather never had been born than to appear in the Divine Presence with such a tradition. It would not be difficult to make out against such, a case of constructive treason to the truth. But this is neither my purpose nor desire. 'Judge nothing,' says Paul, 'before the time until the Lord come, Who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the heart.' My purpose is to enlighten, not to condemn." (John Thomas, Anastasis, 1866, Preface)
The way in which this is presented makes it sound like bro. Thomas is saying he will refuse to judge a man to be acceptable for fellowship or not. But that is not the subject of the condemnation in the Preface. The first sentence shows the subject bro Thomas is addressing:
"But some may be prompted to inquire; Is it necessary to understand all the details of Resurrection and Judgment in order to possess the faith which justifies?"
The question does not deal with the doctrine of fellowship, but rather, are certain details about the resurrection necessary to have a faith that justifies. The answer to this question comes from the true meaning of "Judge, Judge Not, and Fellowship" which is a chapter in my collection. There are certain things we are required to judge. We judge whether or not we believe a person is an errorist, and if we judge he is, we withdraw ourselves, in obedience to divine command. There are specific things we are forbidden to judge. We are forbidden to judge who will be saved and who will not be, which is the question before bro. Thomas. The question is, "Can a man be saved if... ? This is a question which can only be left to Christ. All we can do is say with bro. Thomas, that I would rather not been born, than to appear before the Judge of all the Earth with that belief! But what Christ will say, is beyond our permitted jurisdiction. So in withdrawing, we are not condemning. Christ will do that, if required. We are not judging the motive of those who disagree with us. Again, Christ will bring to light the hidden things of the heart.
There is little doubt, that along with so many things pertaining to fellowship, the Nicodemites misunderstand what they are permitted to judge, and what they is forbidden to judge. This leads them to draw this wrong conclusion from bro. Thomas’ preface. But it goes far beyond this. Recent articles on Nicodemite web sites, such as "Understanding Self" is a complete article which does nothing but judge that which is forbidden to us. Those brethren who take positions different from them, they judges as having immoral motives. Those who agree with him are judged as having righteous motivations. They take it upon themselves to judge the hidden things of the heart in a way quite unprecedented in Christadelphian writings. It is little wonder we find them completely befuddled on the Doctrine of Fellowship, and not really understanding what he is reading in bro Thomas’ Preface. The following article from the 1888 Christadelphian clearly shows the true early Christadelphian understanding on this:
"Judge not that ye be not judged." This command can be infringed in several ways: by attributing a wrong motive to another without sufficient ground; by condemning another for an act for which he may have been truly sorry; by deciding in our minds (apart from the Word) as to who and who will not be saved. James also characterises evil speaking as judging. (4:11.) It is the easiest thing in the world to be disobedient in this matter. Let us be cautious. Let us not be backward in giving another the benefit of a doubt. Let us not forget that we are all erring. God has said, "I will judge." But although prohibited from judging in the manner stated, we are called upon to decide between right and wrong. Paul writes, "withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." Christ has told us how this obligation can be fulfilled—"By their fruits ye shall know them." Manifest lying, manifest drunkenness, manifest covetousness, are not to be condoned. Let us not hesitate to condemn the unfruitful works of darkness, but let our condemnation be directed against the wrong deeds rather than against the brother. Let us keep in view the brother’s reclamation. Let us correct with love, meekness, gentleness, and forbearance. If the commandments of Christ call for us to withdraw or stand aside from others, let us do it, not in the spirit of "I am holier than thou" but in humility and sorrow.
We are not permitted to judge motive. We are not permitted to decide who will or will not be included in that final fellowship Christ will establish at his coming. But we are required to judge right from wrong, and to separate ourselves from the wrong.
