This is a direct response to the last email posting bro. Genusa had on his web site. All the information will come from this web article. Just click on the green link to go directly to portion of the work with addresses bro. Genusa's complaint. You may have to turn off your pop up blocker to use the links. The blue text is bro. Genusa's comments from his last email. The black text are my responses, and the green links go to a quote that proves my point.
This may not be complete for some time. I've already addressed all the questions, and this is just an exercise in highlighting where to find those answers. I'll work on it as time allows.
[1] or read, "interecclesial unity of action"
"Look brethren, even if they break bread on that basis you will be fellowshipping errorists so, here's what you've got to do. [2]Separate yourselves into a new community. [3]Make a Constitution so as to erect walls to keep thy community and fellowship pure. [4]Issue a restatement which puts out of fellowship some errors which are current and then demand all brethren agree, before they break bread, to your rules and demand they agree not to make new rules beyond those you have imposed on them. If any bring some other doctrine receive him not into your ecclesia. Above all brethren, keep thy fellowship pure." [5] Now, does that sound extreme or not? Well...does it?
[1] I have shown bro. Thomas did insist to bro. Roberts on "interecclesial unity of action" in the matter of the Dowieites. He insisted bro. Roberts in Birmingham, had to withdraw from the Dowieites in Scottland, from his ecclesia in New York. I have shown that the brethren in the partial inspiration division also insisted on interecclesial unity of action in the matter of Partial Inspiration, and withdrew from brethren who refused to comply, even if they were sound..
[2] I have shown that in the matter of Temperance Hall and the Inspiration Division, they did separate themselves into a new community, and bro. Roberts points out that this was acknowledged to have happened both by the "New Street" brethren, and by Temperance Hall.
[3] They did form a new constitution, and the purpose was to keep the faith in the community pure.
[4] I have shown that bro. Roberts, when confronted with error, produced a new resolution and insisted that the brethren accept this resolution in his ecclesia; and any wording they preferred which said the same thing in sister ecclesias, before they could be in fellowship.
[5] No, it doesn’t. It sounds like what God has commanded us to do, and what faithful Christadelphians have always done.
* * * * *
Thus his 1870 quote is consistent with his 1851 quotes which show that:
[6] John Thomas did not treat breaking bread as necessarily synonymous with fellowship. The Bereans "without exception" do.
[7] John Thomas did not treat ecclesial membership as necessarily synonymous with fellowship. The Bereans "without exception" do.
[8] John Thomas did not treat fraternal membership as necessarily synonymous with fellowship. The Bereans "without exception" do.
[9] An 1870 position cannot be called an immature conclusion but it was the position he held in his last years. The Bereans do not hold that same position.
[6] I have demonstrated bro. Thomas’ change in position on breaking bread in 1860 Eureka I.
[7] Actually, you have not demonstrated this. You have implied it. What we know without question is bro. Roberts did treat interecclesial membership as synonymous with fellowship, and bro. Thomas approved of his handling such matters.
[8] Your position on this as stated, is wrong. In the matter of the Church of Christ at Lincoln, and the national conference, bro. Thomas did recognize membership in Lincoln, to be synonymous with fellowship with all the churches of the Reformation.
[9] We do not consider his 1870 positions to be immature or wrong. We consider your lifting the 1851 and prior comments and transposing them onto the 1870 comments to be wrong. You imposed immature conclusions on the 1870 writings to infer a meaning he never intended, as demonstrated by his later writings.
Notice there were two classes in the ecclesia of John's day. Spiritual Jews and liars. "The first class were in scriptural fellowship with the apostle..." [10] The Berean argument is that the second class, the liars, were in fellowship with the first, the spiritual Jews, and that therefore the saints were really disobedients, apostates on the doctrine of fellowship &c. But this is a lie which dies at the hands of brother Thomas' own words:
"All whom the apostles fellowshipped, believed it; and all in the apostolic ecclesias who believed it not—and there were such—had not fellowship with the apostles, but opposed their teachings" (John Thomas, 1870)
[10] Your conclusions are not consistent with bro. Thomas’ writings about the Apostolic State. This was a time of purity of truth, unmixed with Nicolaitanism. The "liars" bro. Thomas refers to, we know from Eureka I, were those who arose in the ecclesia, and existed in fellowship "till they showed themselves" at which time they were expelled, either by teaching or by turning over to the synagogue of the Satan. They never were allowed to peacefully exist within the Apostolic Ecclesia, (as they are in Central Fellowship) hence they had no fellowship with the Apostles.
This is where you and I have a disconnect. We both agree that errorists arose in the first century ecclesias. You seem to believe that the errorists were allowed to maintain a place in the first century ecclesias, as you do in Central today. We believe they were not. They were expelled, by teaching or by turning over to Satan, and so they were only together for a short while, as would be the case in the Bereans today. Bro. Thomas is clear that this is the case, especially in the 1870 writings you reference where they were not knowingly allowed into their house.
The Berean position is not in any way related to what you suggest. If any in the Bereans differ from bro. Thomas at all, it is on the question of whether or not, after the "liars" have shown themselves, and while the teaching process is going on, are we or are we not in fellowship with the errorists. Some agree with bro. Thomas that there is no fellowship after they have exposed themselves, others say that technically we remain in fellowship but only while Matt. 18 runs its course.
On another point, as you have consistently done, you have again misrepresented my arguments. Your recasting of arguments into paper tigers of your own pleasure is a provocative act. I do not take it as being indicative of a strong position but of the truth that the emperor has no clothes. Take, for example, this:
> The foundation point in your reasoning concerning my booklet
> "The Doctrine of Fellowship" is that if one starts by accepting my
> premise of a "world wide fellowship," as you call it, then all the
> writings of bre. Thomas and Roberts can be explained in harmony
> with what we see practiced in the Bereans today.
[11] NO where in my writings have I said anything approximating that. How then can you make such a false and provocative claim?
[11] That just isn’t true. It is precisely what you said to me. This is from your email of Aug. 10th, 2006:
"C)....There are two basic ways to view the quotes. The difference in how the quotes are interpreted is due to this: If you START with the assumption of fellowship working, as say the Berean or Old Paths see it, a worldwide fellowship table that must be controlled, the quotes logically lead to worldwide controlled sectarian fellowship."
If you don't mean this, then I can't understand your objection to my booklet at all. There is no doubt as to what they taught. You have to claim, as you have claimed, that understanding what is meant is based on certain assumptions. My detailed examination of the Partial Inspiration division was to disabuse you of your notion.
My argument has been, and what I have shown is, that you have [12] misinterpreted and [13] selectively quoted from both brethren JT and RR. I have also shown that in at least one case a quotation was [14] altered in a way that removed the contradiction between brother Roberts practices and the Berean practices. Therefore the foundation argument, if you like, is that
[15] it is impossible to reconcile my post-1851 quotes from JT and RR with Berean practices.
[12] No you haven’t! You’ve made accusations. But you haven’t even one time dealt with, or tried to explain the quotes I have presented to you at all, let alone show that I have misinterpreted them.
[13] If I have selectively quoted them, should you not be able to provide the balance of quotes I have ignored to justify your position? Why are there none forthcoming? Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you have provided a host of arguments from a time when bro. Roberts argued that bro. Thomas' fellowship views were immature, and you have quoted three brief sections from two articles from bro. Thomas and nothing from bro. Roberts. Why is there so little support for your position in their writings? Meanwhile I have provided page after page of quotes, all saying the same thing. You can't fellowship error. You can't fellowship the man who fellowships error. Distance doesn't matter. You can't fellowship them elsewhere or anywhere.
[14] You are simply wrong in making this accusation. This should be an easy thing for you to prove. What quote have I altered? Answer: None! If I have altered a quote, please present what I have quoted, and the unaltered quote. And also, if I had altered a quote, why did you say that I have provided my quotes in context...though you still believe they are wrong.
[15] It is only "impossible" if you first accept that the pre 1851 quotes are a valid expression of bro. Thomas’ fellowship views, and then transpose those writings onto the 1870 quotes. But if you use his post 1851 teachings to understand the 1870 excerpts, there is no contradiction at all, between what he practiced and taught.
The Doctrine of Fellowship
You repeatedly assert things which I have shown to be untrue leaving me to conclude you are a careless reader.
You wrote,
> I presume it is for this reasons that you feel no responsibility
> to deal directly with the writings in the booklet themselves,
> but you focus on related issues, such as the completeness
> of the quotes, or what quotes could be added.
I have dealt with the writings in at least two different ways. [16] I have told you that anything in your selective quotations which you interpret to mean worldwide fellowship can be interpreted in another way, namely autonomous ecclesias that do not tolerate errorists and therefore do not fellowship them. And [17] 2) I have quoted from JT and RR at early and latter periods of their lives which show that your interpretation is not consistent with their own writings. Their writings plainly demonstrate they did not believe the worldwide fellowship without exception error. The quotations I have supplied demonstrate that you are misrepresenting these two brethren. And that is proved in the fact that you, nor (if words mean anything) an oracle, can reconcile the quotes I've provided with the selective quotations found in your book using your worldwide fellowship without exception interpretatation. What is apparent is that you feel no responsibility to explain why you left out the quotes I have cited. They contradict your claims and, though I provided them to you nearly a month ago, you are as silent as a mouse about them.
[16] You miss the point. The Berean ecclesias are autonomous ecclesias that do not tolerate errorists, and do not fellowship them. You believe your are in the same position, but we do not believe you are. This is why. You are willing to fellowship with those who fellowship error. We are not. That is the point which is separating us. So the question becomes, what did bre. Thomas and Roberts do? I have shown that they took the attitude of the Bereans, and not your attitude. Look at the ecclesia in Cardiff, post 1885. Do you agree with how bro. Roberts handled this matter? The Cardiff ecclesia had no members who believed error. They refused to fellowship anyone in their ecclesia, if they believed error. They read a statement to that effect before they broke bread with each other. But bro. Roberts refused to fellowship them, because some of their members went to visit at ecclesias that did fellowship errorists. Do you do this?
Look at Clause 9 of the second section of bro. Roberts article "The Doctrine of Fellowship." Do you agree with that clause? Will you refuse to break bread with otherwise sound brethren, who break bread with errorists?
[17] You’ve done nothing of the kind! You have not even made an effort in this direction. I really haven’t a clue how you can say you have. Name one article that I quoted in my booklet, where you established a context to cause it to appear in a different light. The only article that I am even aware you quoted from, was "Union and Unity;" and there you don't deal with context, but complain I left out a portion that deals with your imagination of a Berean hierarchy. I've dealt with your imaginations before. I'm not sure why I should have to continue to do so.
