 |
|
 |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||
|
|
||||
Concerning the Book
The Doctrine of Fellowship
Table of Contents
The Book Is Berean But Is It 'The Pioneer Position on Fellowship'?
Altered and Selective Quotations
Contents of The Doctrine of Fellowship
Spurious Claims of A Third Immersion for John Thomas
Quotes Not Included in The Doctrine of Fellowship
Questions For Bereans and other Separatists
Introduction
The Berean keystone of fellowship, consistent with all separatist Fellowships (Berean, Dawn, Old Paths, Maranathan, Watchman et al), is "fellowship without exception" or that they have "fellowship with all in our community who share the emblems". Using this same principle, separatist Fellowships justify their separation from other Christadelphians on the claim that other Christadelphians "fellowship error". If this one premise of "fellowship without exception" is destroyed, we do not have to meander here and there in the pioneer writings arguing this point or that point — though some separatists might want to do this to distract attention from this truth: If this keystone of "fellowship with all in our community who share the emblems" falls, the entire basis of separatist Fellowship and separation falls — unless separatists wish to claim the writings of John Thomas and Robert Roberts are contradictory on "the doctrine of fellowship".
John Thomas vs Berean Christadelphians "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" (John Thomas, The Christadelphian, 1870, p. 16)
"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" (ibid; Note: these quotes are just a few years before brother Thomas' death).
"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)
"We do believe that all Berean Christadelphians are in fellowship with each other, without exception."
"We do believe we are in fellowship with all in our community who share the emblems. "
[Note: Since Bereans consider "The doctrine of fellowship" to be such an important point, some even calling their view of fellowship a "first principle" I assume that no Berean will contradict the above "first principle" statements which were made by a Berean brother (who is no novice). But if any are willing to reject the above principles then I advise you in advance that without the above premise your entire justification for separation from those Christadelphian brethren you are otherwise in agreement with falls to the ground.]
The Bereans, Maranathans and some other fellowships either assume or believe that the local tables of fellowship collectively gathered, also known as a Fellowship (Institution), is Christ's table of fellowship without exception. That's how they treat it by practice. In other words, when an unjust person in the Institution breaks bread at the Fellowship's table, no matter where in the world he or she is, Christ and Belial theoretically are joined. Thus to prevent this, the Fellowship institution must be kept "pure" or, where such power to exclude is not possible, a new Fellowship Institution must be started that then becomes Christ's table of fellowship, the "One True Body", the "One True Fellowship" and the old "table", or Institution they go out from, no matter how many faithful brethren still break bread on the same basis, becomes "a fellowship of iniquity", "apostates", or "disobedients" "who fellowship apostates".
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).
Do the Berean and Maranathan "Fellowships" match the description of the first century ecclesia and the latter day ecclesia?: "I entirely agree with you in your graphic description of the barrenness of Christadelphia... The Christadelphian Body in the days of the apostles abounded with professors whose hearts were but little attuned to the faith and hope they professed. Peter styles them washed hogs; and Paul, as little complimentary of them as he, terms them, 'liars, evil beasts, and slow bellies.' These were creatures who had 'crept in unawares,' and 'spoke evil of those things which they understood not;' clouds they were without water, carried about of winds of doctrine, and sporting themselves with their own deceivings, by which they beguiled unstable souls, and brought 'the way of truth' into disrepute." (John Thomas writing to Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1866, p. 204)
Why is it that these fellowships do not match this description or match the Spirit inspired Apocalyptic descriptions of the ecclesias of God? The answer is below.
The Doctrine of Fellowship is a book published originally in 1982 by two members (at the time) of the Berean fellowship, Julio Scaramastro and Jim Phillips. The book, primarily, consists of quotes from John Thomas and Robert Roberts on the subject of fellowship.
Brother Jim Phillips, still a Berean, recently contacted me concerning the listing of his book in the Christadelphian timeline posted to my web site. Brother Jim has contacted me in the past about other issues, always mixing friendliness with a pinch of provocation. We both strongly hold our beliefs and our communications are invariably forthright, sometimes blunt, this exchange being no exception. But I do believe our exchanges have been useful. Jim has stated he has "no objection whatsoever" to posting our correspondence on this topic.
The Book Is Berean But Is It 'The Pioneer Position on Fellowship'?
From what I have seen, both in personal experience and the experience of others I know, the book The Doctrine of Fellowship is used as a tool to try and convert non-Berean Christadelphians to the Berean fellowship. Not that there's anything in the book that explicitly leads to the Berean fellowship position. Julio Scaramastro left the Bereans in 1990, 8 years after the book was first published, republishing it in 1994 where it is now also used as a tool to convert non-Maranatha Christadelphians to the Maranatha fellowship. Not that there's anything in the book that explicitly leads to the Maranathan fellowship position.
Whereas Jim contacted me to take up the issue of his book being listed in the timeline, I thought I'd take the time to put in writing what's wrong with the book in the context in which it was created and in which it is used. As I point out to brother Phillips, there are two basic ways the quotes can be interpreted. "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. The quotes never have a chance for a fair understanding since the way to interpret them is predetermined."
Altered and Selective Quotations
That is especially the case since, as I have subsequently found, the quotes are not complete. At the time I originally replied to brother Phillips I was out of town and working off a laptop. I wrote him saying that I had not researched his selection of the Pioneer works to be able to comment on whether or not the pioneer works had been selectively quoted from. When I returned home, it was coincidence, but the first quote I checked had been cut off at a point which was critical to properly understanding the original author's position. Here is an excerpt of page 20 from The Doctrine of Fellowship:
If you will, notice the "* * *" near the bottom where part of the quote has been removed. Now here's the full quote with the missing section of the quote in bold type:
"The only practicable rule of operation at present is fellowship on the basis of oneness of mind. It is a rule fraught with embarrassment and pain, but it is not of human appointment and cannot be set aside where faithfulness to the word of God is not extinct. To confound this rule with the Corinthian schisms that gloried in particular men after the flesh, is a serious mistake. The 'plea' shows some heat against those who are described as 'every assumed leader amongst us.' I suppose I am intended as one of those, and as such, I am to be 'repudiated once and for ever.' There is either misunderstanding or malice here. I am no 'leader' except as a man’s individual actions may influence others. I have always repudiated the imputation of leadership. I but do my own part on the basis of individual right. I claim no authority. I dictate to no man. I only act out my individual convictions, and advocate my individual views. Which of the demurring brethren do not do the same thing? Why should they find fault with me for doing what they do? If others are influenced by what I do or say, is this wrong? Is it not what the critics are aiming to do? An enlightened man would refuse to be responsible for such an unreasonable criticism. There is suggested the appointment... " (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1898, vol. 35, page i; originally written from Melbourne, Victoria, November 12th, 1897).
Now, the question is, why would this section be removed? It isn't as though the point is irrelevant to fellowship or pioneer practices. Rather, it directly speaks to that point, though in a way not agreeable to Berean practices. The book The Doctrine of Fellowship purports to be an accurate presentation of Pioneer behavior on fellowship. In this quote brother Roberts is stating his view of the limitations he must operate under — limitations some who claim to follow RR's practices seem to be unaware of because they follow a totally different course. There are other parts of the article less important which could have been cut — certainly not as important as brother Roberts affirmation that,
"I am no 'leader' except as a man’s individual actions may influence others. I have always repudiated the imputation of leadership. I but do my own part on the basis of individual right. I claim no authority. I dictate to no man. I only act out my individual convictions, and advocate my individual views."
This is exactly the point I made about brother Roberts in my second response. Brother Roberts did not exercise the authority that others imputed to him. He did not dictate to his own or to other ecclesias. He advocated his own views on the basis that any men who wanted to could claim, 'individual right'. The Bereans, and other sectarian fellowships, do not have a history of operating in this way. And so it is ironic that the first selective quote I find is one where the Berean publication has excised the part of brother Roberts' comments that are not consistent with their own practices.
August 14 Update: Doing a search on the word "fellowship" in brother John Thomas' writings have yielded multiple quotes from brother Thomas that were not included in the book. Those who believe the book The Doctrine of Fellowship fairly represents brother Thomas on the topic will need to assimilate these quotes into their view of the matter, if they can. They will be added, God willing, shortly.
As important as the issue of selective quotations is, this was not part of the arguments made to brother Phillips.
Berean Claims On Fellowship
The Berean Ecclesial News, July 1999, p. 120The Published Berean Basis of Fellowship
Front Cover, The Berean, January 1980The full Berean "restatement" can be found here. A restatement is, according to the dictionary, "a revised statement", not merely a re-stating or re-telling. The Berean revised statement includes statements on evolution, conferences, marriage to the alien (different from John Thomas' position on the matter) and a variety of other topics.
I am not sure in light of the regular and official publications of "OUR BASIS OF FELLOWSHIP" since 1960, and the distribution of said statements to potential converts, how Bereans can claim that "The Berean Christadelphians, over our history, have been the one Christadelphian fellowship which has steadfastly refused to alter our fellowship position from that established by these men" unless we are to intepret the statement in a technical sense. But then, the technical fact is, no fellowship position, outside of the Berean fellowship position, was ever established by G.V. Growcott and so the claim of this sentence is totally irrelevant in respect to any other fellowship. To put it another way, all non-Berean fellowships never were under the fellowship position established by GVG so there was no way they could alter it to begin with! Is this what the Berean author intended to communicate, or rather, it seems obvious, he wanted to portrary Bereans as being the only Christadelphians that have upheld the "Pioneer" position on fellowship*.
If there were no Berean alterations to fellowship then there would be no Berean revised statements, or "Unified & Universal" positions being published, "unify" indicating the bringing together of two or more things (see the above list for the 5 items + intro that were published together).
Perhaps Berean brethren in making this claim to be "the one Christadelphian fellowship which has steadfastly refused to alter our fellowship position" are unaware of the fact that Central brethren meet on the original basis of the BASF, Doctrines to Be Rejected and Commandments of Christ?
* The truth is, this position evolved over time, but never was equivalent to the position the Bereans have taken as the quotations below will show.
Contents of The Doctrine of Fellowship
...
- Know No Man After the Flesh
- Divider of the Flock
- The One True Gospel
- Neutrals
- Cry Aloud and Spare Not!
- Fellowship and the Nature and Sacrifice of Christ
- Fellowship
.
Spurious Claims of A Third Immersion for John Thomas
While on the topic of what brother John Thomas did and did not do it is important, especially for Bereans, to consider this spurious claim from Julio Scaramastro:
The reason this claim is made is that brother Thomas' ideas on some things changed following his baptism in 1847 ("The Doctrine of Fellowship" and immortal emergence to name two). Julio, in particular, was of a mind that a belief in immortal emergence would have invalidated brother Thomas' 1847 baptism. Thus, to Julio, error on this, or the doctrine of fellowship "would be to say that our beloved Bro. Thomas is outside the 'pale of salvation.'" (That being Julio's own judgment and words)
Contrary to that claim is the following evidence:
- Sister Lasius’ letter to sister Ida Smithson Wood stating ‘In reference to your question as to whether the Dr., my dear father, was re-immersed upon the fuller understanding of resurrection and judgment and ‘mortal emergence’ from the grave – I think I can answer in the negative – I never heard him mention a third immersion or say that it was necessary.” — E. J. Lasius, October 10, 1910 (reprinted in The Christadelphian Advocate, August 1984, p. 201-202)
- "Not True (J.J.A.). — The report that the Editor was 're-immersed on the judgment question, and again on God-manifestation, when Dr. Thomas was in this country,' is not true. The Editor has only once been re-immersed, and that was twelve years ago, on attaining to an understanding of the things concerning the name of Jesus, of which he was ignorant at his first immersion, when 16 years of age, his faith at that time laying hold of the kingdom only. The Editor’s faith in relation to the doctrine of judgment and God-manifestation was at his re-immersion what it is now. We take this opportunity of also stating that the reports of Dr. Thomas’s re-immersions are equally unfounded. We can understand the object for which these false reports are circulated." (Robert Roberts, 1874, The Christadelphian, p. 610)
- "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 [1832], I was immersed again [1847]. 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." (John Thomas, Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, 1851, p. 120)
.
Quotes Not Included in The Doctrine of Fellowship
THIS SECTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION
The following quotes found no room in The Doctrine of Fellowship. The reason will be apparent to the reader. The question is, "Do Bereans uphold the fellowship practices of John Thomas or Robert Roberts?" The answer anyone who faces the following quotes must come to is, "no". The conclusion any fair minded person must come to is that the Bereans have selectively taken quotes from JT and RR to support their own position on fellowship.
The first excerpt below is John Thomas, 1851, speaking to and demonstrating his view of fellowship, four years after his baptism in 1847.
Brother Jim Phillips argues that the time allowed for disfellowship "would be measured in months and maybe in that age of slow communication, years." But brother Thomas did not rely on "slow communication"... he was there, on the scene and broke bread in places where he knew they did not hold sound doctrine. And the reasons he gives are provided below:
John Thomas,
Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, 1851, p. 82-83
John Thomas,
Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, 1851, p. 110-111In rejecting the position brother Thomas lays out in these 1851 excerpts do not assume that the only other choice is that position held by the Bereans. The following quotes will show there is another, the position which developed after the 1851 position.
September 6 2006 Update: I have been asked as to why I have included the above quotes since they are not a position I would personally endorse. The reasons are as follows:
- 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. This is the reason why some brethren conclude there must have been "a third baptism" for brother Thomas, though without any evidence. He was never re-immersed under the claim of not having understood "(the doctrine of) fellowship" at his (final) 1847 baptism (proofs provided above) but his actions (both in 1851 in addition to the fact that he later changed who he would fellowship) demonstrate a faulty understanding of fellowship and withdrawal in 1851 which is 4-5 years after his true baptism of 1847.
"Beloved brethren, human nature is always tending to extremes, and transcending what is written. As the saying is, it will strain out gnats, and swallow camels by the herd. It set up the Inquisition, and is essentially and always inquisitorial, and incessantly prying into matters beyond its jurisdiction. It is very fond of playing the judge, and of executing its own decrees. It has a zeal, but not according to knowledge, and therefore, its zeal is intemperate, and not the zeal of wisdom, or knowledge rightly used. It professes great zeal for the purity of the church, and would purge out everything that offends its sensitive imagination. But is it not a good thing to have a church without tares, without a black sheep, or spotted heifer? Yea, verily, it is an excellent thing. But, then, it is a thing the Holy Spirit has never yet developed; and cannot now be developed by any human judiciary in the administration of spiritual affairs. There are certain things that must be left to the Lord’s own adjudication when he comes; as it is written, 'He that judgeth is the Lord. Therefore, judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come; who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts; and then shall every man have praise of the Deity'—(1 Cor., 4:5. Apoc. 11:18)—'every man,' whose hidden things and heart-counsels when brought to light will be accounted worthy much of praise. Does not this teach us how more important it is that brethren be more diligent in examining themselves than in examining other brethren; and that the Lord expects them to leave something for him to do in the way of judging, condemning, excommunicating, cutting off, and casting out, in 'the time of the dead that they should be judged?' 'Brethren, be not children in understanding; howbeit, in malice be ye children, but in understanding be teleia perfect.'—(1 Cor., 14:20.)" (John Thomas, The Christadelphian, 1866, p. 92)
excommunication: "The act of banishing a member of a church from the communion of believers and the privileges of the church; cutting a person off from a religious society"
"QUERIES PROPOSED BY J. A. I. TO DR THOMAS, FOR CATEGORICAL ANSWER
1st.—Will the unfaithful, who lived from Adam to Jesus, be raised to judgment at the second advent; or will they never be raised, but 'remain in the congregation of the dead?' Answer: 'Some will; others not.'
2nd.—Will men die during the reign of Christ, through their connection with Adam? if not, when are they freed from that connection? and if freed, will they live always, if obedient? Answer: 'All but the saints will be mortal.'
3rd.—Was the flesh of Jesus from his birth by Mary, pure, holy, spotless, undefiled. Answer: 'No.'
4th.—Had he not been put to death violently, would he have lived for ever? Answer: 'No.'
5th.—Did he stand in the same relation to 'the law of sin and death,' as Adam did before he transgressed? Answer: 'Answered above.'
6th.—Can a man be justified who believes the things implied in these questions concerning the nature of Jesus? Answer: 'The Lord will settle this question at the judgment.'
7th.—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.'
Reason for Putting these Questions. 'I have some of your writings, and understand your mind thoroughly on these questions; but others who have them also, do not seem to understand them. I would therefore like to show them plainly that they do not understand, and so either convince them of their error, or shut their mouths.
Response.—'The mouths of the bewitched are not easily shut. The most ignorant are the most garrulous. He is wise who speaks few words.'" (The Christadelphian, 1870, 155)[The Bereans, admittedly, have figured out how not to have many brethren who are bewitched and disgrace the truth: By not having many brethren the problem disappears]
"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)
Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, 1860, p 260
Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, 1859, p 84"C. S.—It is true that Paul includes 'the doctrine of resurrection' among 'first principles' in Heb. 6:1. 3; but it is not evident that in the 'doctrine of resurrection' as a first principle, he included the teaching as to the physical quality of the body when it emerges from the grave. We must look to the recorded preaching of Jesus and the apostles for the sense in which the resurrection was inculcated as a first principle. If we do so, we shall find that the broad fact that 'there shall be a resurrection of just and unjust' in opposition to the denial of the fact, is all 'the doctrine of resurrection' that appears in their inculcations. Details, such as the question you refer to, were reserved for the instruction afterwards communicated to those who were put into Christ on the basis of the first principles laid down in the teaching referred to and were never so far as we have any record, laid down among the first principles themselves. This being so, to make belief in mortal resurrection a test of fellowship seems to us to be putting strong meat in the place of milk, and to make a first principle of that which under the apostles was only a matter of instruction to those who were in Christ. What can we suppose the 3.000 on Pentecost knew beyond the broad fact that there would be a resurrection? Or the twelve apostles themselves when baptized by John the Baptist, and afterwards feet washen by Jesus at the supper before his crucifixion? What more can we suppose Paul knew on the subject, when baptized by Anania, or the Phillippian gaoler, or the Ethiopian eunuch? If it were a question of eternal condition, we could understand the disposition of some to attach vitali portancc to it; but seeing it only relates to the little interval between emergence from the grave and the judgment seat—an interval which unless a doubtful renderïng be adopted, is entirely overlooked in the most uminous exposition we have in the New Testament on the subject of resurrection, (1 Cor. 15)—it would require more unequivocal warrant than is to be found in the scripture to justify its adoption as a point of faith necessary to salvation. The question is different where a person denies that the saints will appear before the judgment seat of Christ. This is one of the most palpable elements of the truth as preached by Jesus and the apostles which must be acknowledged as a preliminary to baptism. But you seem to argue that a person who denies mortal resurrection must repudiate the judgment, since resurrection would anticipate and practically set judgment aside. Logically, you may be right, but practically, it does not follow. Many believe Paul’s statement in its apparent sense, 'the (righteous) dead shall be raised incorruptible, ' and yet believe his other statement that 'they shall appear before the judgment seat of Christ to receive in body according to what they have done, whether it be good or bad' and the way they reconcile the logical conflict between the two, is to believe that God, who knows everything beforehand, will raise the accepted, incorruptible, and the wicked in their mortal state, without in any way superseding the tribunal at which their respective merits will be officiality adjudicated. We do not endorse this view, but we dare not say in the state of the evidence that it is fatal to the position of those otherwise believing the truth. The point is one which does not affect a man’s candidature for the kingdom, but rather lies within the category of advanced knowledge which it is to a man’s profit to possess, and the want of which may lower his status in the kingdom, but not exclude him from it. Putting the question on this footing, we are prepared to maintain, and will in due time endeavour to prove, that the dead of both classes when they emerge from the grave, are in a mortal condition." (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1865, p. 207)
"On my second and last visit to Dundee, in 1850, I was sorry to find a want of union, confidence, and co-operation among all who had yielded obedience to the Gospel of the Kingdom. Roots of bitterness existed, connected with total abstinence, and what was supposed to be a tendency to episcopal ambition, to leadership. Alas, when will they who would be greatest learn to become the servants of the least of Christ’s flock? I judge not in the case before us, because I am not sufficiently informed of its real demerits; but I do most sincerely tender to all the friends of the Kingdom’s Gospel the advice which I aim to practice myself, and that is, have patience till the Kingdom comes, and seek no lordship until then. If we are found worthy of that Kingdom, we shall share with Christ in his absolute and divine lordship over Israel and the nations. Surely this will be honour and distinction enough for the most ambitious. Till then let us despise the microscopism of a little powerless and brief authority in the household of faith. A man of knowledge and wisdom will have more authority and power thrust upon him by his fellows than he will care to exercise, if his mind be rightly chastened by the truth. Let each esteem other better than himself, and all will be well. Men are sometimes made usurpers by the suspicious insinuations of others, and their intrigues to prevent usurpation. Let us beware of this; and let all things be done with love as unto God and not to men, and then harmony will be undisturbed. Temperance is a virtue against which there is no law. Jesus Christ, our sovereign, lord, and king, was temperate in all things, and so are all the members of his royal household. He and they are temperate as a fruit of the spirit—a virtue resulting from the truth believed. He was not a total abstinent. This is a fact. Neither were Paul nor Timothy; nor can Christ’s members be who drink of the new covenant cup. Total abstinence was never made a test of Christian fellowship by the apostles, though temperance was; for it is written, 'no drunkard shall inherit the kingdom of God.' Drunkenness is disorderly conduct, and every brother that walks disorderly we are commanded to withdraw ourselves. The saints have no right to impose tests of fellowship upon one another which the Spirit of God has not imposed. The world, whose standard of morals is not God’s standard, can impose what it pleases upon 'its own'; but it has no right to dictate to Christ’s household, who are its masters elect; nor should Christ’s brethren permit it. They should be careful, too, not to drink into its spirit, nor to co-operate with it in carrying out its crotchets. If every earth-born were a total abstinent, the world would be as far from the kingdom’s gospel as if every man, woman, and child were drunken with the fumes of alcohol. The soberest of the world’s people have been made drunk with the wine of the great harlots adultery, Rev. 17:2. This intoxication continues, and will obfuscate their intellects until the Lord comes to sober them, Isai. 25:7. Offer the Kingdom’s Gospel to the most pious of the world’s abstinents, and they will reject it with contempt, and perhaps with rage; or if they profess to believe it, how few of them are sober minded enough to obey it. Let not the saints mis-spend their efforts, and waste their energies. If they be zealous for total abstinence, let it be for a total abstinence from all sins. The Gospel needs and commands their whole soul. Let the world attend to the liquor, to tobacco, and to the emancipation of 'its own' from political and social duress imposed upon them by sin, whom they serve; be it ours, the 'heirs of the kingdom,' and the future enlighteners and regenerators of mankind, co-operators with Christ in the deliverance of the world, to mind our own business, which is to open the blind eyes, to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of the adversary to God, that they may receive remission of sins, and inheritance among them that are sanctified by the faith which is in Jesus, Acts 26:18." (John Thomas, 1849, Reprinted in The Christadelphian, 1887, p. 433)
Herald of The Kingdom And Age To Come, 1858, p. 62[Note: The above quote brings to mind that it is possible to have a mistaken judgment in the case of judging whether we should keep ourselves separate from others and to "call unclean" "what God hath cleansed". Cleansing a man intellectually and morally is an affair of many years but God rebuked a man who held this mistaken judgment saying specifically in regards to those He has called and who must have been in an early state of the process: "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou unclean."]
[Part or all of the following quote does appear in The Doctrine of Fellowship, but I'd like to highlight certain things brother Thomas says]
"FELLOWSHIP IN THE TRUTH"
"In a private communication to a friend in the North, who had put some questions, Dr. Thomas writes on this subject, as follows:
"The Lord Jesus said: 'I pray not for the world, but for them which Thou hast given me, that they may be one, being sanctified through the truth; that they all may be one, as Thou, Father, art in me and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us, as we are one, made perfect in One.'—(John 17.) This unity of spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3), is what John styles our fellowship, the fellowship of the apostles, resulting from sanctification through the truth. Hence all who are sanctified through the truth, are sanctified by the second Will, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once. For by one offering he hath perfected for a continuance them that are sanctified (Heb. 10:10, 14), which one offering of the body was the annulling and condemnation of sin, by the sacrifice thereof.—(Heb. 9:26.) This body, which descended from David 'according to the flesh,' was the sacrificial victim offered by the Eternal Spirit.—(Heb. 9:14.) if David’s flesh were immaculate, this victim, descended from him, might possibly be spotless; but in that event, it would not have answered for the annulling and condemnation of sin in the flesh that sinned.—(Rom. 8:4.) If it were an immaculate body that was crucified, it could not have borne our sins in it, while hanging on the tree.—(1 Peter 2:24) To affirm, therefore, that it was immaculate (as do all papists and sectarian daughters of the Roman Mother), is to render of none effect the truth which is only sanctifying for us by virtue of the principle that Jesus Christ came IN THE FLESH, in that sort of flesh with which Paul was afflicted when he exclaimed 'O, wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from this body of death?'—(Rom. 7:11, 24.)"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 Christadelphian, 1870, p. 16)
*Separatists will interpret "body" here to mean "worldwide Fellowship". Others will interpret this to mean "ecclesia". The context of "inviting fellowship on that basis" reveals which one brother Thomas had in mind.
Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, 1858, p. 125
"Friend Crichton puts the matter in the wrong shape when he speaks of 'cutting him off from fellowship.' No man in the present day has power to either cut off or put on. The only power we possess is to stand apart where duty calls for it, and this power belongs to every one. It is a question of duty in each case. On this, mistakes may doubtless be made: but it is a matter in which everyone must judge for himself, in the doing of which he is responsible to Christ, the supreme judge. If the fact that Christ will judge his people at his coming is no part of the apostolic testimony of the gospel, then doubtless it is a 'grievous mistake' to make the rejection of it a reason for dissociation. But if it be otherwise—if Christ’s office as the judicial dispenser or withholder of life at his coming, be an element of the gospel preached by them, (and who can gainsay it in the face of the following testimonies?—Acts 10:42; Rom. 2:16; 1 Cor. 4:5; 2 Cor. 5:10; Heb. 6:1), dissociation on the ground of the rejection of the fact becomes simply one of those painful deprivations to which we have to submit oftentimes with a reluctant sense of duty. The glorious parts of the gospel referred to by Friend Crichton are part of the basis of fellowship; but they must not be divorced from the other parts. The faith of the gospel is a compound element (e.g., the Father, the Son, the crucifixion, the resurrection, the promises, &c.), and it is dangerous to sacrifice any of the elements. 'Reconsideration' can but confirm the attitude of faithfulness to the whole gospel, unless we were at liberty to act in accordance with the friendly instincts of the natural man. These would certainly incline us to abate the jots and tittles, and to accept sincere generalities as a sufficient basis for fellowship in Christ.—Editor" (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1880, 131)
[Note: Some may argue, "see, brother Roberts says no man in the present day has the power to cut off. Therefore we Bereans cannot cut off". In a general sense, some men certainly have the power to cut off others from their ecclesiastical community. It all depends on the constitution and practices of the ecclesiastical community. The Churches have the power to cut off which is known as excommunication. The power to excommunicate exists anywhere that people can be or are cut off from an ecclesiastical community. The statement from brother Roberts means that the saints have no power "to cut off or put on" another man "from fellowship". Bro. Roberts was addressing the complaint of a man who was withdrawn from, not a man who was excommunicated!]
"W. D.—The 'table of the Lord' is not a piece of furniture, nor the material emblems employed in the celebration of the Lord’s death. It is a mystical name (derived from the literal table in the first instance) representative of a memorial act enjoined upon the brethren of Christ who while remembering their absent master in the form appointed, set forth their unity by partaking of one bread and one cup. This unity in the present state, is doctrinal and arises from unanimity in their perceptions of the things imported by the ceremony — which things of course have reference to a higher future unity, when they shall be in nature 'one.' You ask who is to decide upon the admissability, or non-admissability of persons to this. The answer is, Christ has constituted his brethren, the natural guardians of that table by making it symbolical of unity. This compels them to see to it that unity exists where they are invited to sit down to it. They may differ as widely as possible on general topics, but there must be unanimity in their views of the matters involved in the ceremonial act, in which they are called upon to engage. Hence they instinctively refuse to 'fellowship' those who have another hope and believe another gospel than themselves. They would not hesitate to refuse fellowship to members of the common sects of professing Protestantism; so that although 'the Lord’s table,' they are compelled in the Lord’s absence to act with the discretionary power of the Lord’s stewards, in drawing the line which divides the mystic table of the Lord from the wide spread table of the devil, This leads to the specific questions you ask. A person holding the common doctrine of the devil is not in unity with the doctrine which constitutes the basis of 'the table.' The event memoralized by the table is the destruction of the devil through the death of Christ, (1 John 3:8. Heb. 2:14.) Hence, unity of doctrine on the subject of the devil is absolutely necessary as a condition of the memorial act of the table. The devil Christ destroyed, was sin in the flesh. This is the fact perceived by all who scripturally partake of the table, but if there come one among you, saying that sin in the flesh was not the devil that Christ destroyed, but that it was a supernatural antagonist, dealing death and affliction among the human race, then he is clearly unsuited by his condition of mind to sit down with you. There is no unity between you in those doctrinal perceptions which constitute the very basis of 'the table of the Lord.' If he insist on a fellowship which cannot exist, all you have to do is to follow the apostolic injunction where spiritual incompatibility arises,—'withdraw thyself' which is more in harmony with the general passive policy inculcated by Christ, than the arrogant attitude of excommunication." (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1865, p. 148)
excommunication: "The act of banishing a member of a church from the communion of believers and the privileges of the church; cutting a person off from a religious society"
"This manifestation of the approved after this process is one reason why Yahweh keeps silence, and permits Satan to continue their operations among the Sons of the Deity, without any present judicial interference. There is also another very good reason for present non-intervention, and this is, because He has appointed a set time, styled by that infallible and incomparable exponent of the truth the Lord Jesus, 'a Day of Judgment,' hemera kriseos (Matt. 12:36); and by the no less accurate Paul, 'the Day when the Deity shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to the gospel' Paul preached: 'therefore,' saith he, 'judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come; who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts;' and 'who will judge the living and the dead at his appearing and kingdom' (Rom. 2:16; 1 Cor. 4:5; 2 Tim. 4:1) and styled by the earnest and faithful Peter, 'the Day of Inspection', hemera episkopes (1 Pet. 2:12) 'the time that the judgment begins at the house of the Deity' (ch. 4:17); when, as James testifies, the saints shall be judged by the law of liberty (ch. 2:12).
"These are two all-sufficient reasons why the Satan should be Providentially tolerated among the sons of the Deity, until the Ancient of Days come. 'Now is the day of salvation,' says Paul; but this, in effect, the Satan denies. He turns it into a day of judgment, saying, that there is no other day of judgment for the saints than this. Satan, of course, exceedingly dislikes the idea of being judged, and rewarded according to his works. He does not approve of the doctrine of eternal life based upon an inspection of faith and practice after resurrection. He demands resurrection with immortality, not resurrection unto eternal life. He wants to spring out of the dust immortal, and no questions asked; for he knows very well, that neither his faith nor his practice will bear the light. Be this, however, as it may, his pleasure and satisfaction will not be consulted. Inspection and its consequences begin at the house of the Christ: and Satan, who had received the one talent, and was afraid of the truth, and hid it in the earth, is purged out as a wicked and slothful servant from among the sons of the Deity; and cast into the darkness of the outer world, where weeping and gnashing of teeth are the order of both day and night (Matt. 25:14–30; Apoc. 14:11)." (John Thomas, Eureka, vol 5, p. 81-82)
[Note: Brother Thomas' argument is that Satan is Providentially tolerated. This does not negate the apostolic conditions laid down to not have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but it should reign in over zealous brethren who will try and establish a kind of ecclesiastical community that is not the work of the Spirit. Further, note that the comment brother Thomas makes is pointing, specifically, at those who taught immortal emmergence (Benjamin Wilson's camp). Brother Thomas recognized that there were these false teachers "among the sons of the Deity". Even at this advanced date, the final volume (3) of Eureka, he was not advocating excommunication for errorists. Rather, "Inspection and its consequences begin at the house of the Christ" from whence "Satan" "is purged out as a wicked and slothful servant from among the sons of the Deity". Berean practices attempt to purge satan out now but they do so at a cost that God never commanded; a cost that has been Scripturally reprimanded -- they put true brethren "out of the synagogues" yea they "think that" they "doeth God service." (cp. John 16:2 for this important principle)]
Questions for Bereans and, where applicable, Dawn, Maranathans and Other Separatists
You claim to uphold the "pioneer" position on fellowship. Therefore the following questions are in order:
- If the doctrinal judgment of Frank Jannaway is the standard by which all are measured then do Bereans also accept Frank Jannaway's judgments on:
- A small temple in the Future Age which is contrary to the exposition of H. Sulley / R.R.
- F.J.'s published views advocating jury duty and his views of acceptable alternatives to military service
- F.J.'s prophetical views which were sometimes unsound including his concept of Armageddon which was contrary to J.T.'s
The Correspondence
Our correspondence can be found here (HTML format)
The Issue of Julio Scaramastro's Involvement in The Doctrine of Fellowship
Bro. Jim replied on August 10th with the following information:
"Just a little bit about the booklet since I have a little time, and how it came to be. Bro. Julio desired to do something about educating ones concerning the doctrine of fellowship, and I was quite willing to help. What I did was to go through my collection of Berean Magazines, cut out the articles on fellowship, paste them up, and produce it off of a copier in my garage. (I work in copier sales and repair, so it was easy to do.) I sent the copies to bro. Julio, who spiral bound it and distributed it.
"I bring this up just to clarify that bro. Julio was not a co-compiler, not did he have any input into the booklet at all. It is entirely my responsibility. Bro. Julio did provided some funding." -- Jim Phillips
Julio may not have personally selected any of the quotes. But the following facts are relevant:
- Brother Jim states that the original idea to do something on the topic of fellowship was Julio Scaramastro's. This would be consistent with ecclesial news from that time which indicates his interest in advancing the subject.
- The first edition was published under the names of Julio Scaramastro and Jim Phillips:
- Brother Phillips says that Julio was involved in funding the book, binding the book and distributing it.
- Julio then, eight years later, left the Bereans. Julio titled his own letter to the Bereans "A Matter of Fellowship -- Why We Withdrew From the Berean Fellowship"
- In this letter Julio uses the phrase "doctrine of fellowship" some 35 times, for example, charging the Bereans with an "unwillingness to put into practice the principles regulating the doctrine of fellowship":
and
- Julio either believed that the Bereans were not dictating in the right way on specific issues and/or perhaps he believed the Bereans were not dictatorial enough.
- Four years later Julio, then in the Maranatha fellowship, republished the book, with a new preface
.
Do not confuse good intentions, zeal, or personal convenience with the pioneer position on fellowship.
Last Update: November 4, 2006
