13. Some Parting Shots

• The RC's view of fellowship is sectarian. Fellowship is an Institution -- a Church. A Pure, Worldwide Fellowship is the 'fellowship' an RC seeks to achieve (One can only wonder why Paul handled the Corinthians as he did; or why Christ handled the weak and sick ecclesias of the Apocalypse the way he did. In neither case were faithful brethren in those ecclesias accused of having fellowship with errorists -- the constant refrain of RC's.
• In trying to prove their purity of fellowship, the RC proves too much for if at any time any individual in the group holds doctrinal error or moral impurity then he or she 'pollutes' the whole group -- therefore at any given time the whole group must be 'polluted'.
• One wonders why the Lord's description of the final state of the true ecclesia in Rev. 3:17 does not match the RC's claims about his own community. There is a serious disconnect here which the RC cannot see because the conclusion of this point is fatal to the RC premise -- that a pure, or even semi-pure 'fellowship' can co-exist with mortality.
• The RC must apply the words of Christ, "when the son of man cometh, shall he find faith" to only those outside his own community.
• If Israel of old is a type of the ecclesia, as most brethren will admit, how is it that the RC will not apply this continual straying from sound doctrine and lifestyle to his own community? The RC is quite adept at applying this to all outside his own community.
• When faced with fundamental error, the RC may conclude that starting a new Institution is the best solution. 'Earnestly contending for faith' and not 'fleeing' from the wolf are not options unless the RC believes he has full control.
• For all the searching for iniquity within 'outsider' communities the RC engages in, one wonders how much self-sacrificing love exists; how much self-sacrifice has been manifested; how much grief exists for a perishing people? How much wine and oil have been applied? Or is he just counting how many stones he has thrown?

Do we view the ecclesia as an institution?  Absolutely!  As bro Roberts says in the article we quote below concerning the ecclesia in Corinth, every spiritually-minded brother will see the ecclesial institution, as a divine tabernacle, pitched "in the midst of a waste howling wilderness of unenlightened humanity."   So yes, the ecclesia is an institution, and a Divinely appointed one.

Does that make us a "Church?"  What is a "church?"  The Author complains we don't use Central's works, but why use their works, when they can't even get long established Christadelphian definitions correct?  Here is bro. Thomas on the word "Church" which identifies it as the building or property pertaining to a lord, and the modern views of Christendum:

1. “Church.”

In the rendering of the original before us I have not translated the word ekklesiai , but simply transferred it. It is generally rendered churches; but this word does not express the ideas of ecclesia . Church is a corruption of kuriake , which signifies “pertaining to a lord.” The Anglo-Saxons took the first and last syllables of the Greek word, as kur-ke , which they spelled Circe; but which is more obviously shown in the Scotch kirke; both of which are equivalent to the modern English Chur-ch . “Something pertaining to a lord” is the etymological signification of the word; and although, in a certain sense, an ecclesia is something pertaining to a lord, and that lord the Lord of heaven and earth, yet the ideas of property and lordship are not contained in the word ecclesia . This is one reason why in this exposition of the Apocalypse we reject the word church as the representative of ecclesia .

Another reason is, that ideas are conventionally associated with the word which are altogether unscriptural. Ecclesia never signifies in the Bible “the place which Christians consecrate to the worship of God;” nor does it signify such collective bodies of “professors of religion” as pass current for Christians in and with the world, under the various “names and denominations” of “Christendom.” These, and many other ideas associated with the word church , such as churchman, church-warden, church-attire, churchyard, churching of women, and all such papistical foolishness, are altogether foreign from the scriptural use of ecclesia . In order, therefore, to get quit of all the rubbish we exclude church from our apocalyptic vocabulary, and hold on to the word used by the apostles. We have therefore transferred it in our rendering without translation.

Still, as an expounder of the word of truth, it is our duty to make the word ecclesia perfectly intelligible to the unlearned reader; for we write principally for the benefit of such.  Eureka 1:120.

So we are not a "church," but an institution, created as a refuge in the midst of a barren wilderness.  The author asks why Paul handled the affairs in Corinth the way he did.  We wonder why the author doesn't understand what the Pioneer wrote about this very question.  But if he had understood these things, he wouldn't be writing the things he wrote, especially in regards to his judging of the brotherhood.  It was Paul to Corinth who wrote:  "Judge nothing before the time...".

Epistles To Corinth Do Not Justify Fellowship of Error

By Robert Roberts

Every spiritually-minded brother and sister will cordially respond to the definition of the ecclesial institution as a divine Tabernacle, pitched "in the midst of a waste howling wilderness of unenlightened humanity"; and all such will cry a hearty "Amen!" at the suggestion of "almost inexhaustible patience and carefulness" in our dealing with such an institution.

Yet some care is needed in the deductions we draw from Paul's attitude to the Corinthian ecclesia. Some have argued on that attitude in a way to nullify his express directions in other cases.

Paul had authority as an apostle which he could use with decisive effect in case of need. It was authority he had received-- "For edification, and not for your destruction" (2 Cor. 10:8). --as he said: but still it was authority which he was prepared to use-- "Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me" (2 Cor. 13:2-3). He could say-- "If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man and have no company with him" (2 Thess. 3:14).

We all know that men having authority in any matter to fall back on are naturally patient and gentle to a degree not so easy where there is nothing but argument and equal influence to set against the teaching of the opposition. This has to be considered in judging of Paul's tone and attitude towards an ecclesia in so corrupt a state as the Corinthians. But as to the right attitude towards such corruptions in the abstract, we must gather them where that is the subject in hand.

Paul recognized the original character of the Corinthian ecclesia as "God's building," and argued against the various corruptions in doctrine and practice that prevailed at the time of his writing. But he did not mean that these corruptions were to be disregarded in fellowship. On the contrary, in the case of fornication referred to, he said-- "Put away from among yourselves that wicked person" (1 Cor. 5:18).

He found fault with them at their indifference, and that they had not-- "Rather mourned that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from you" (v. 2). His argument goes powerfully against retaining such--"Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? PURGE OUT THEREFORE THE OLD LEAVEN" (v. 6).

When he says-- "Judge nothing before the time" (1 Cor. 4:5), --he is speaking of the brethren's personal judgment of himself--a thing forbidden concerning all brethren, and a thing that cannot accurately be done. He is not speaking of ecclesial attitude to wrong doing. He does not mean that we are to shut our eyes to manifest disobedience or denial of the Truth in our own midst. On the contrary, he makes the enquiry as if to something well understood and notorious-- "Do ye not judge them that are within?" (1 Cor. 5:12), --that is, in the cognizance of manifest evil-doing, to the extent of refusing to eat with any called a brother who is a fornicator, etc. (v. 11).

So, though he argues with some who denied the resurrection, we are not to conclude that he regarded such a denial as compatible with a continuance in fellowship if persisted in. We must judge on this point by expressions directed expressly to the question of how error persisted in is to be dealt with.

On this, he does not speak ambiguously. Even to the Corinthians, referring to an approaching third visit, he expresses the fear that he should be found such as they would not like. He only writes in the tenor of apparent toleration "lest," says he (2 Cor. 13:10)-- "Being present, I SHOULD USE SHARPNESS according to the power which the Lord hath given me to edification and not to destruction." "Shall I," enquires he "Come unto you with a ROD, or in love and the spirit of meekness?" (1 Cor. 4:21).

And-- "Being absent now, I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all other, that if I come again, I will not spare" (2 Cor. 13:2).

In other epistles, the indications are quite explicit (can it be that he contemplated our ignoring what he says in one epistle because of what he has said in another)? To Timothy he plainly says, "Withdraw thyself" (1 Tim. 6:4) from a class whom he describes as-- "Proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words" --who-- "Consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus."

He also says-- "Avoid profane and vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so called, which some professing have erred concerning the Faith" (v. 20).

He also advises him to shun certain "babblings" personated by Hymeneus and Philetus-- "Who concerning the Truth have erred, saying the resurrection is past already" (2 Tim. 2:18).

To Titus he says-- "A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject" (3:10).

To the Romans-- "Mark them who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them" (16:17).

John speaks plainly to the same effect (2 John 9-10)-- "If any man bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house."

And the messages of Jesus to the seven Asian ecclesias are all more or less in the same strain.

It is all according to reason; for if we were at liberty to ignore departure from the Faith and practice of the Gospel, it would certainly happen in the long run that both must vanish from our midst. Friendliness would indispose a man to be critical; decay would set in as the result of the indifference. Thus the ecclesia would prove the reverse of the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. No community can ever hold together that winks at the denial of its own principles.

But we perpetrate a wrong against Christ if we separate ourselves from his brethren on the ground of some personal grievance against one or more in their midst. There is a right remedy for this; and if from any cause we cannot apply it, let us forbear. In such cases we are to practice almost inexhaustible patience and care.

And even in matters of error, we must be quite sure the wrong is espoused, and give every one an opportunity of repudiating the wrong, before we resort to the extreme and irrevocable remedy of separation, by which we throw the issue entirely on the final judgment of Christ. There may be cases in which we have no alternative, but it is far better if we can settle differences before we meet him.

--May, 1890

We are asked by the author about the ecclesias in the Apocalypse, and again it is crystal clear that the writer doesn't read the pioneer writings, which is why he is so unfamiliar with the foundation teachings written there.  The letters were written to the ecclesia, which if the author could correctly identify what the ecclesia was, he would know that all who are called, faithful or otherwise constitute the ecclesia.  But all called of God are not in fellowship with each other.  Writing on this in Eureka, bro. Thomas wrote:

"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."   John Thomas, Eureka 1:270

The ecclesia then, just as today, was made up of a number of individuals, many, (at some points in history one could even say most) of whom had become disobedient to their calling.  The true Christians, that is, those who remain obedient to their calling could not have fellowship with the disobedient.  That is the teaching of bro. Thomas, and I believe that is the true teaching of the Apocalypse.  Among the true Christians, you will always be able to detect the "poison of the serpent," even in faithful ecclesias.  As bro. Thomas says, these will sooner or later show themselves.  Why?  For the very position our author is taking!  They regard our position as "harsh, uncharitable, and severe."  Ultimately, the serpents sentiments will rise to the top. And when they show themselves of that character, that is, when they enter into a position of outright and unrepentant disobedience, whether in walk or in conduct; that is the time that they must be dealt with.

Proves Too Much!

This leads us directly into the author's argument about purity, and how our position "proves too much."  We have already dealt at length with the author's false charge against us, that we consider ourselves "pure."  The author now suggests that our teaching from 2 John 1:9, must automatically convict us, since no ecclesia can be pure.  The teaching of the Spirit is this:

2 John 1:9-11 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.  If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:  For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

In so saying, the author is making the argument against the teaching of John.  John states clearly that to welcome the errorist is to be a partaker, and that word should have been translated "fellowshipper" of his evil deeds.  Our author says the Scriptures say nothing to the faithful about fellowshipping errorists.  Isn't that exactly what John said?  Isn't that exactly what bro. Roberts taught from this very passage? 

Robert Roberts, Whom I Love In The Truth, Chdn. 1873, pg 549  'Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son" (v. 9).

The "doctrine of Christ" is that he is God made and manifested in the mortal flesh of Abraham's race for the deliverance thereof--on His own principles--from "that having the power of death." Those who hold fast to this have both the Father and the Son; for in Jesus they have the Son, and the Father manifest in Him. As to those who "bring not this doctrine," John's commandment is (v. 10): "Receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed"!

This command we can no more evade than any other commandment delivered unto us. The obedience of it may cost us something. It is crucifying to the flesh to refuse friends--some of them excellent people as human nature goes---who in one way or other have been seduced from their allegiance to the doctrine of Christ; but there is no alternative. Friends are but for a moment; the Truth is for ever; and if we sacrifice our duty to the latter from regard to the former, the latter will sacrifice us in the day of its glory, and hand us over to the destiny of the flesh, which, as the grass, will pass away. "He that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

This applies to all without distinction, and erects a barrier to fellowship with even some who hold the Truth; for though they may hold the doctrine of Christ themselves, yet, if they keep up a "God speed" connection with those who do not, by John's rule, they make themselves partakers with them, and, therefore, cut themselves off from those who stand for the doctrine of Christ.

The epistle, as a whole, is singularly applicable to the situation in which we find ourselves this morning. We have been obliged to stand aside for the doctrine of Christ from some we love. The Epistle of John justifies us in our course, both as regards those who have departed from the doctrine of Christ, and those, who, while holding on to it themselves, see not their way to break connection with those who have departed.

It is a painful situation, but we must not falter, nor need we fear or be discouraged. God is with us in the course of obedience, and we shall see HIS blessing in the increase in our midst of zeal and holiness, and love and preparedness for the great day of the Lord, which is at hand.

Obviously, our author doesn't believe the teachings of John, or the applications by bro. Roberts of John's words; and so he concocts some argument against it.  He reasons that at any time, an ecclesia must have errorists in its midst, and therefore, if John's principle is true, we are all guilty of fellowshipping errorists.  

It is the author's application of John's words that are false, not the writings of John.  Responsibility for error in the ecclesia does not begin when a brother sins. All men sin, but repent of the sin.  This is not a concern of the ecclesia.  But some men sin and defend that action.  It is here where the ecclesia must lovingly get involved, in harmony with the commands of Christ as outlined in Matt. 18.  At other times, we find brethren begin to teach that which is contrary to the stated Basis of Fellowship.  It is here where the ecclesia must also become involved, or be derelict in its obedient duty.  But the ecclesia is not disobedient when error arises in it's midst.  If it acts responsibly, and makes the effort to teach away the error, in harmony with Matt. 18, it is not disobedient, or a fellowshipper of error.  It is only if the ecclesia refuses to deal with error in the first place, or, after the ecclesia examines the issues, and follows the procedures Jesus set down for us, continues to fellowhip the errorists, that the question of fellowshipping "evil deeds" becomes an issue.  If the ecclesia refuses to deal with error, then it becomes disobedient and a partaker of evil deeds. One wonders how badly the doctrine of fellowship has slipped in Central, that this argument could be raised as a legitimate objection to obeying the commandments of Christ.  

A Strange Fatalism

One of the strangest teachings to come out of our "conservative" Central brethren's new approach to fellowship, is a fatalism that corruption of the Truth is inevitable, and it is somehow wrong to try and stop it.  If you connect the dots, they seem to be teaching that the corruption of the ecclesias is inevitable, and a fulfillment of Bible prophesy preceding the return of Christ, and therefore it is somehow wrong to use the direct teachings of the Scriptures on fellowship, to discourage it. 

We agree with the author that the ecclesias are to be corrupted as a sign of Christ's impending return.  We disagree with him that we should accept the fatalism of this position, and fail to act in harmony with apostolic command.  Nor do we see the prophesy as a justification to disobey clear apostolic command.  When the Lord comes, shall he find faith on the earth?  The answer is actually yes!  Paul said "Those of us who are alive and remain..." thus prophesying that there will be faith, but the asking of the question implies, not very much.  The same is true of the ecclesia in its Laodicean stage.  The same is true as prophesied through natural Israel. 

Our author claims that:

 "If Israel of old is a type of the ecclesia, as most brethren will admit, how is it that the RC will not apply this continual straying from sound doctrine and lifestyle to his own community?"

It has not been my experience that our "conservative" Central brethren will liken Israel of old to the modern ecclesia.  In fact to do so, is to completely yield their position.  Israel of old was told exactly how to deal with error.  Their failure to follow the doctrine of fellowship as exhibited in the Law of Moses, led them to their destruction.

The Law commanded this:

Deu 13:12-18 If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, (13) Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; (14) Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; (15) Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. (16) And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again. (17) And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and shew thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers; (18) When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God.

Here is the type of the doctrine of fellowship.  It is completely consistent with the teachings of Jesus and Paul.  If you hear of error in a city (ecclesia) you enquire, make search, and ask diligently, (go to him yourself, then with others, then tell it to the ecclesia) and then the city is destroyed (let him be unto thee as a heathen man, and a tax gatherer, men Israel had nothing to do with.)

Instead, our Central "conservative" brother tells us Israel's commands were wrong, and we must keep going to the corrupt city trying to convert them from their wicked ways.  And we must expose our young and our babes to the wolves of that city, that our own city will be corrupted.

Throwing Stones

What are the stones Berean Christadelphians throw?  You cannot find anywhere, any article such as this one we are examining where Berean brethren imply motive to brethren.  You cannot find anywhere, articles by Berean "reactionary" brethren which "judge" others contrary to the commands of Christ.  That would be casting stones.  This article we are examining is in fact nothing but the true casting of stones, as it judges us unworthy of even having our position examined, because morally  it has judged us as corrupt.  And such judgments are far beyond the privileges granted to us by Christ.

We stand aside from error.  We document the error by quoting our Central "liberal" brethren.  Is using their own words to demonstrate what they teach, throwing stones?  Apparently our Central "conservative" brethren think so.