9. Imagined Characteristics of Reactionaries (Bereans)
Our Position is "Spin"
Reactionary conservatives, because they are already intellectually compromised, are more likely to use liberal tactics. Appeals tend to be based on a long list of twisted facts, carefully chosen to 'prove' the correctness of the RC's position. It is not a balanced presentation of pros and cons or genuine history. RCs are more willing to engage in propaganda, obfuscation, distortions -- what is now whitewashed under the label of "spin".
The past justifies the present and the present justifies the past.
I grew up as a Christadelphian. As a young man, when I grasped the Truth, I remember wondering how it was that other churches could fail to see the truth of certain doctrines like the establishment of the Kingdom on earth, or their inability to prove their doctrine that the Kingdom is in heaven. I asked my Father, also a Christadelphian: "What do the Churches say when you show them verses like Gen. 13: 14-16 which establishes the promise with Abraham is the land of Israel, and Hebrews 11:39 which shows that Abraham has not yet received that promise?"
Dad said: "They will tell you, you haven't been to seminary, and therefore you can't understand these things." I thought dad was just too busy to explain the real answer at that time. Certainly, no one could be so arrogant, to tell us that we lack the capacity to understand. They had to have some answer.
But I found out just a brief time later, the preachers were that arrogant, and that dad had actually given me their real answer. They really do tell us that we lack the ability to understand these things, because we haven't studied their books and mysteries. If we only had the knowledge that they had, then we could see the things they teach clearly. It is pure, arrogant foolishness.
But now we have a Christadelphian using the same argument as the Churches. This author considers those who take a position contrary to himself, to be "intellectually compromised." Oh, if only we were as intellectual as this author, then we could see with clarity the soundness of his position. Such arrogance! What is the state of Central today, that this can be considered a reasonable argument?
My position is this. I don't know if I'm as smart as you, or not. It doesn't matter to me. If the facts I use are twisted, or out of context, it should be a simple thing for you to establish the context, and untwist the facts to set them with their proper focus. I am doing that here. You say I'm intellectually challenged. I say, it doesn't matter. Present your facts from the Scriptures that say we are to continue to fellowship the errorists, and let us judge them right or wrong.
I have presented Paul's argument to the Corinthians about leaven. He says "purge out therefore the old leaven." How have I twisted this argument?
I have presented Paul's argument to the Thessalonians, where he said "Withdraw yourself from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the traditions he received from us." How have I twisted this argument.
I have presented John's argument that "If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed". How have I twisted this argument?
I have presented Jesus' argument that after the process he described in Matt. 18, the man who refuses correction is to be to us "as a heathen man, and a publican." How have I twisted this argument?
And I have shown how Paul copies Jesus' command: "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition, reject." How have I twisted this argument?
And I have presented many more similar arguments throughout this paper. I have also presented the writings of the Pioneer brethren to show that my view was also the view of the original Christadelphians in their history. Here is another. It is notable that bro. Genusa's web site which hosts this article I am addressing, also has this article by bro. Roberts called " Fellowship: Its Nature and Conditions." Only it cites only the first series, and does not include the second. Why, if an open and honest and balanced approach to history is desired? Is it because the second series shows bro. Roberts to take the same fellowship position I do? In the second series we read
THE SECOND SERIES
1. In the accomplishment of its mission among men, the Truth acts by separation and association-
a. It separates men from the world: "Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate" (2 Cor. 6:17).
b. It associates those so separated: "Ye are all one...forsake not the assembling of yourselves together" (Gal. 3:28; Heb. 10:25).
It produces these results by the creation of scripturally derived ideas in the minds of those operated upon. By these ideas they are dominated and controlled. They become mentally "new creatures," and manifest the change in their altered relations to men and things around them.
2. But the association of those separated by the Truth is governed by conditions that sometimes interrupt that association. Hence, "Have no company," "Withdraw," "Turn away" are apostolic commands concerning some who have been actually separated by the Truth.
3. The conditions of association relate to two departments of our standing in Christ, which may be expressed as conviction and character. Unity of conviction and mutuality of conformity to a certain standard of action, are the two conditions out of which association and fellowship grow, and by rupture of which, it is necessarily interfered with.
4. This rupture may be only partial in either department, and yet be sufficient to cause suspension of association in fellowship. Apostolic examples-
a. Refusal to recognize that Christ had come in the flesh was made a reason for not receiving men who believed in God and the Kingdom and a number of other elements of truth (2 John 7-11).
b. Idleness was declared a ground of disfellowship where men had otherwise submitted to the commandments of Christ (2 Thess. 3).
5. That the first condition of association is the belief of the Truth, apart from the perception and reception of which, there is no basis of fellowship.
6. That the Truth forming this basis is made up of a number of items or elements that are each essential to its integrity as a whole.
7. That it is a matter of duty to require the recognition of these at the hands of those claiming association with us in the Truth.
8. That we are not at liberty to receive any one who denies or refuses to believe any of them, because the receiving of such would open the way for the currency of their principles among us, with the tendency of leavening the whole community. The elements of the Truth are so mutually related that the displacement of one undermines the foundation of the whole.
9. A man himself believing the Truth, but willing to wink at its denial among those in fellowship in any of its essential elements, becomes, by this willingness, an offender against the law of Christ, which requires the faithful maintenance of the whole.
Faithful servants of Christ cannot unite with such, on the ground that though he hold the Truth himself, such a man is responsible for the error of those he would admit, and therefore becomes the channel of a similar responsibility to those who may endorse him in fellowship- "He that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds" (2 John 11).
10. That it is the duty of the friends of the Truth to uphold it as a basis of union among themselves by refusing to receive either those who deny any part of it, or those who would receive those so denying.
11. Paul commands withdrawal from "any man" who "obeys not his word...delivered by epistle"
(2 Thess. 3:14). He commands the brethren to hold fast the traditions taught by him "whether by word or epistle" (2 Thess. 2:15).
12. Paul teaches by epistle that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. (2 Tim. 3:16).
13. We are bound to hold fast by this, and refuse association with any man refusing submission to this apostolic tradition.
14. The doctrine of partial inspiration is a nullification of this apostolic tradition; and a doctrine, consequently, from the holders of which we are bound apostolically to withdraw.
15. That the highest sanction of reason supports this apostolic obligation, since logically, the doctrine of partial inspiration, when worked out, deprives us of confidence in the only access we have to the Divine mind in our age.
Now remember the authors definition of a "reactionary." Our author states that the "reactionary" is one that for the sake of purity, and to maintain a "narrow view" moves from a larger group to a smaller group. Now think about how the keeping of these principles by bro. Roberts must inevitably work out. If you separate from the errorist, are you not inevitably moving from a larger group (one that includes the errorists and their supporters) to a smaller group? And are you not doing to for the sake of purity of doctrine? And is that view not very "narrow?" Does that not make bro. Roberts, by this author's definition, a "reactionary?"
Look at numbers 8, 9, 10, and 11. Here is where our differences lay. We abide by these principles. Our Central "conservative" brethren will not. If you are individually sound on all doctrines except fellowship, you can go to certain Central "conservative" meetings where the principles of the Truth (except fellowship) are maintained and be accepted. Bro. Roberts says we are not to behave this way. He says the man who does behave this way, is an offender against the law of Christ. And what verses does he string together to make his point? Those from Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians, chapter 3, just exactly as I have done (see # 11).
Our Central "conservative" brethren will argue that we misunderstand bro. Roberts' teachings. We hear that from every corner on virtually every subject these days. There was even a recent article in the Central publication called "The Endeavour Magazine" which argued that the teachings of bro. Thomas, and that of the Trinitarian are the same. So there is no telling what arguments can be advanced along these lines.''
But here is a point that should be easy for all of us to understand, no matter how intellectually challenged we may be. It is the same point I made to the late Richard Stone when he was suggesting bro. Roberts taught the doctrine our Central "conservative" brethren call "Partial Atonement." I gave Richard Stone nine verses relevant to the Sacrifice of Christ. I showed him bro. Roberts' interpretation of those verses, and that it was identically the same as mine. I showed him how his interpretation of those verses as he provided them to me, was not the interpretation of bro. Roberts. I challenged him to find even one place where bro. Roberts interpreted the key verses to the Sacrifice of Christ, the same way that he did. I challenged him, that if bro. Roberts and he were in complete agreement as he claimed, should they not have interpreted the key verses in complete agreement as well? He declined this challenge.
So here is the same challenge to our Central "conservative" brethren on fellowship. If your position is the historical position of the Christadelphians as you claim, show us where, in interpreting any of these verses that I have used, bro. Roberts takes a different position than I have taken. Show us where bro. Roberts says that any of these key verses I have used are to be limited to your local ecclesia only. Show us where bro. Roberts says that 2 Thess. 3 does not mean that the brother otherwise sound, who refuses to separate himself from error, is not in error himself, but is to be received. Show us where bro. Roberts says that when Paul says purge out the old leaven, he only means your immediate ecclesia. Show us where bro. Roberts teaches that the hireling who leaves the flock are otherwise sound brethren, who misunderstand the doctrine of fellowship, and therefore refuse to stay and fight the wolves. Show us where the "house" of 2 John refers to our personal houses, and not the ecclesia.
If you can't (and we all already know you can't--you have no more chance of doing this, than Richard Stone had of finding where bro. Roberts taught Hebrews 7:27 meant the high priest had to offer first for himself, so that then he could be a type of the sinless Christ, and offer for the people) then why do you say our arguments are twisted, and propaganda, and what our politicians call spin?
