"You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free"

A Berean Answers My Twelve Questions

The following questions were posted to my web site some time back. Jim Phillips of the Berean community answered them and sent me a copy. My original questions are the bolded numbered points with brother Phillips' answers and my responses following.

If readers take nothing else from these questions, answers and responses I would like them to notice that:

1. Brother Phillips repeatedly treats 'withdrawal' as if it was synonymous with the idea of a totally separate Fellowship. The Scriptures speak of withdrawal as the way to deal with error and certain matters of disobedience. As I discuss in more detail below, the Scriptures never advise someone to withdraw themselves from doctrinally sound and obedient brethren and to create a new Fellowship institution (community, or society).
2. Brother Phillips repeatedly turns to the argument of brethren not having fellowship with darkness. This is the argument he falls back on, as if we have ever claimed that light should (or could!) fellowship darkness. We totally agree with his argument on that point and have never disputed it. The problem is that he takes his premise of fellowship, imputes it to me (though I have rejected it outright), he mixes his false understanding with my position in Central, and then falls back on a point which is not disputed. If he refuses to take up my specific arguments, but instead to fight a paper tiger which a babe could destroy, I will assume he has nothing but blanks to fire against the doctrinal position I argue for. If other Bereans take up his cause I ask them to deal with my specific arguments and to avoid pontificating on principles of fellowship which I have not challenged. These diversions do nothing to support your case unless you are satisfied with dust obscuring the vision of some onlookers.
3. The Bereans and other schismatic fellowships repeatedly assert that doctrinally sound and obedient brethren "fellowship errorists". How is it that Bereans say "otherwise sound" brethren "fellowship" errorists? It only in the fact that both the obedient and disobedients both claim to have the same "Fellowship card". Bereans accept this as FULL EVIDENCE that the sound and unsound persons are in full fellowship. It is interesting that persons who never believed that doctrine before they joined the Bereans treat it as an undeniable truth once they are Bereans. On the same logic John Thomas and Robert Roberts were, for a time (and it matters not to this argument whether the time were 1 day or 100 years), in fellowship with the Dowieites, partial-inspirationists, clean-fleshers, trinitarians et al. By their logic Paul was in fellowship with an incestuous Corinthian. By their logic, the brethren of which Christ said "thou hast not denied my faith" were in fellowship with Nicolaitanes &c. These are just a few examples. Therefore, by their logic, Christ was joined to Belial in all of it, a thing which Scripturally is not possible. The truth is, there is a fundamental flaw to the Berean view of fellowship. Well, to be accurate, there are a number of fundamental flaws including their assertion that the breaking of bread, regardless of where in the world you are, is equivalent to fellowship.
4. The following dialogue proves, as my other dialogues with Jim Phillips do, that withdrawal is not sufficient to the Berean position. Excommunication is the only thing they will have, not in word but as the practical result, the reality, of their 'withdrawals'.

 

1) If there is only One Faith, One Hope and One Baptism wouldn't, logically, there be only One real Fellowship?

Jim Phillips: A.  The Bible does speak of one faith, hope and baptism, and there is only one fellowship, though that one fellowship is not determined by men.  The verses which concern us about fellowship, are usually when the Bible treats fellowship as if it were a verb, such as "to do good and to communicate (fellowship) forget not.  The emphasis is not on preserving an earthly fellowship, but rather, the doctrine consists of commands concerning who you are to fellowship, and how, in order to be in that one fellowship.  Without doubt, there was such a thing as the "Apostle's Fellowship" and this was an institution distinct from the other "fellowships" which are mentioned in the Scriptures styled the Gnostics, the Nicolaitans, the Synagogue of the Satan, the Baalamites, and the Jezebelites.  There will be one fellowship, when God establishes it, but not now.  Now we have many "fellowships" where men walk together according to their conscience.  These "fellowships" are the consequence of a man's understanding of two divine commands.  "Withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition (precepts) he received of us" and "not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together."  The instant that men disagree as to what these commands mean, and how they are to be practiced, we have two "fellowships."

Response: Jim has proved that there are man made fellowships. The question already inferred there are man made fellowships which itself logically leads to God vs. flesh or the One True Fellowship vs. The synagogue of satan. Cutting through unnecessary verbosity Jim's answer is: "Without doubt, there was such a thing as the 'Apostle's Fellowship'" which was exactly the rhetorical point of the question. Note that consistent with Berean advocacy Jim felt the need to justify their own man-made fellowship. Watch for this pattern in his answers.

 

2) Is that One Fellowship man-made or the creation of God?

Jim Phillips: A.  God will establish the One Fellowship on earth at a time yet future.  The "fellowships" we have now, are not established by God, but by men perceiving their responsibility to God's teachings and commands differently; then acting obediently.  I think we get a good example of this in the life of bro. George Booker, which he has chosen to share with us.

[the rest of Jim's answer has been deleted for the reason noted below]

Response: Individuals may apply to Jim Phillips for his full answer but to summarize it, it is the just-so story of George Booker as told by Jim Phillips. If readers do so, it would only be fair to apply to George Booker for his comments (though, with all due respect to JP, I can't imagine why anyone would care to have it since it avoids answering the question I asked).

The best answer that can be extracted from his pointless digression is that "God will establish the One Fellowship on earth at a time yet future." The rest of his answer was an attempted justification at why Bereans have separated themselves. The only problem with Jim's answer is that the "Apostle's Fellowship" was joined in by brethren "on earth" (a point he admitted in answer #1) and John Thomas considered himself part of that "Apostle's fellowship" and he was also on earth when he wrote: ""My fellowship is with the apostles; they had many brethren who were bewitched and disgraced the truth." Now, the apostles were dead and buried at the time John Thomas wrote this, so it could not have been a man-made fellowship which he was referring to.

Jim avoids question #2 though consistent with Berean advocacy doesn't miss a chance to justify his own man-made fellowship while hanging out a just so bogeyman story to provide living proof of his need for justification. I deny the premise of his argument and so any number of devils, real or imagined, will not justify his argument.

*     *     *     *     *

3-A) If "Our fellowship is with the Father, and with His son Jesus Christ" and "if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another" then fellowship, according to the Bible, begins with the relationship between an individual, God and His Christ. Responsibilities then start with the individual and radiate outward. The focus is not on a Church Institution, but on a relationship between individuals, God and His Son. Our position towards others then is not centrally controlled but rather, exercised locally radiating outward to the extent that responsibility, opportunity and any authority allow.

Jim Phillips:Answer:  I have divided this third paragraph into two sections to make responding simpler.  The section quoted above, I believe to be a completely scriptural and accurate explanation of the doctrine of fellowship.  I agree with everything written here, and the manner in which it is explained.  The focus is never on the institution, but rather on an individual's obedience.  Our obedience at times requires separation.  Those of us who have separated from outward and unrepentant disobedience, then meet together in obedience to the divine command of  not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together.  But bro. Genusa continues...

Response: Jim agrees in words but Berean practices are not so. There is, for example, a Common Constitution in the Bereans which takes a certain portion of ecclesial autonomy away from Berean ecclesias and vests that control into all other Berean ecclesias. There are other factors, namely the Berean restatement which further takes ecclesial autonomy away and vests that control into all other Berean ecclesias. These documents, which are assented to before fellowship is allowed, are a central control upon all ecclesias and individuals that assent. It is true that a Berean ecclesia may reject any element of their fellowship agreements, but it is also true that the other Berean ecclesias are free to reject renegade ecclesias from Berean membership. Jim does not deny the "completely scriptural" answer and yet totally ignores the Berean's history and practices which deny ecclesial autonomy.

*     *     *     *     *

3-B)  The sectarian fellowship position starts by defining the boundaries of the community and working inward. It attempts to centrally control all perimeters of the community, centrally authenticates all claims as to who is in and who is out. By its practices it claims that once the perimeters are "defended" then the individual is in fellowship with God.

Jim Phillips: Answer:  This is a conclusion bro. Genusa has personally reached, but it is generally wrong.   All Christadelphian groups, including the Central "fellowship" start out by defining their boundaries.  Generally speaking, all meet on the BASF, except for some Unamended communities who use the BSF.  Still others have their own Statements of Faith, and some "fellowships" have expanded the BASF, but the point is the same.  All Christadelphian communities begin by defining their boundaries.  The difference between Central "fellowship" and the protestant "fellowship" is not in the defining of "boundaries" but rather, how individuals, and ultimately ecclesias deal with a matter, when those boundaries are torn down.

None of the Christadelphian groups he refers to as "sectarian" (I usually use the term "protestant," as in protesting the lose standards of Central)  have any central control, nor are they focused inward.  Probably, it appears so to bro. Genusa, because as a group, the protestant "fellowships" will by nature of their walk and conduct, be more uniform in belief than Central "fellowship" where divergent opinions on the first principles of truth are accepted.  In observing this uniformity of belief, bro. Genusa may conclude it to be only possible through some sort of central control and over zealous policing, but the fact is that each of our ecclesias operate independently, and make all decisions related to fellowship to themselves.  Because we all start from a common point that we are willing, ecclesially and individually, to enforce in fellowship, it may appear from the outside that this is an all consuming work. 

This simply isn't the case.  We all agree on the first principles of truth, or we wouldn't have bothered to stand aside from groups who accept varied opinions in the first place.  We are all pretty much on the same page.  Maintaining this is quite simple, because brethren who reach contrary opinions on the BASF, already know the conclusion of the matter, before it goes too far.  Most leave us for the more error-tolerant Central "fellowship" way before we are done trying to reason with them.

I'm sure that the statement bro. Genusa makes that "by its practice it claims" is simply made up by him to cause us to appear in an absurdly unscriptural position.  We don't claim, "by our practice" or any other way that once certain perimeters are defended, then we are in fellowship with God.  We believe what the Scriptures say:  "If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:  But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." (1 John 1:6-7.)  We view this as an individual responsibility, not something that can be granted by a "fellowship."  If an individual is walking in light, then he has fellowship with God.  We can "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness" (Eph. 5:11).  These are the divine conditions for fellowship.  We have determined, as pertaining to our own individual obedience, that a person who contradicts the truth as defined in the BASF is in darkness, and we have no fellowship with such a person, or with those who (while perhaps personally sound) believe they can disobey apostolic commands in fellowshipping such a person.  This is what we show "by our practice."

Response: Jim says, "This is a conclusion bro. Genusa has personally reached, but it is generally wrong." First, yes, I am a person and therefore it is safe to say my conclusion was one I "personally reached". Other persons will examine the facts (that is to say, Berean Fellowship Documents) and "personally reach" their own conclusion as well.

I accept Jim's concession that I am "generally wrong". This means that to an unspecified extent I am generally right and that Jim is going to spend the rest of his answer making out the best case he can for the Bereans. A person who knows there is no truth to an argument does not say the answer is "generally wrong" but that it is wrong, clearly wrong, demonstrably wrong or some other term which has no room for its opposite conclusion.

Jim wrote, "The difference between Central 'fellowship' and the protestant 'fellowship' [Jim's interesting term for non-Central Christadelphian fellowships] is not in the defining of 'boundaries' but rather, how individuals, and ultimately ecclesias deal with a matter, when those boundaries are torn down." Jim, again, overstates his case. Jim argues that Central boundaries have been "torn down", not that they are challenged, but that they are obliterated (notwithstanding the BASF, COC and DTBR).

He is wrong to claim there is no difference in "defining of 'boundaries'". As considered in my previous response, the boundaries of the Berean community (the Berean Common Constitution and Berean Restatement) are a shell around and superadditions to the BASF, COC and DTBR.

He is right in noting the difference in how individuals and ecclesias deal with a matter. As I argued in correspondence with Jim, Bereans verbally deny excommunication but practice it as a matter of reality. Bereans do not call it excommunication, but rather, it comes under the heading of "interecclesial unity of action". That is a major difference between the two Fellowships on a practical basis.

Jim claims, "None of the Christadelphian groups he [Stephen] refers to as 'sectarian' (I usually use the term 'protestant,' as in protesting the lose standards of Central)  have any central control." This claim is not true. As discussed in this and in my correspondence with him, there is central control vested either in persons (whether Jim submitted to them or not) or in, abstractly speaking, Fellowship statements such as a Common Constitution which regulate the schismatic Fellowship's ecclesias. There are no renegade Bereans running around. Either you are in or out of the Berean community, so far as they are concerned. No person or persons can be admitted to their Fellowship until they submit to the conditions of the Berean Constitution, the conditions of the Berean Restatement in addition to the BASF, COC and DTBR. (My point is not that they have requirements but that the requirements are superadditions to the original Christadelphian basis of fellowship — while at the same time they claim to be "unchanged" from the "early/pioneer Christadelphian" basis)

Brother Phillips then writes, "Probably, it appears so to bro. Genusa, because as a group, the protestant 'fellowships' will by nature of their walk and conduct, be more uniform in belief than Central 'fellowship' where divergent opinions on the first principles of truth are accepted." No, I think that this is due to how small the schismatic fellowships are. Less flesh. Less trouble on the whole. Brother Phillips may sing the praises of how pure he thinks they appear from the outside but wise brethren know that flesh is flesh. Low youth retention rates do not manifest health but disease in relation to the parents. Having to regulate clothing to control the display of tattoos &c. are not an indication of health but of worldliness. The Bereans just hide their problems better than larger Fellowships. Furthermore, the truth is, the mechanism of withdrawal they practice (aka excommunication) permanently removes trouble from the schismatic fellowships.

Brother Phillips writes, "I'm sure that the statement bro. Genusa makes that 'by its practice it claims' is simply made up by him to cause us to appear in an absurdly unscriptural position.  We don't claim, 'by our practice'...". I confess that the form of words is my own -- I denote quotations where used. When a person wants to express an idea he will choose words which he believes express that idea. What I was saying was very similar to the words of James when he wrote, "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works". As the saying goes, "Actions speak louder than words". This is a principle I, "personally" believe brother Phillips has repeatedly ignored. He says one thing while the Berean works are another, if only "generally".

Finally, he wrote, "We have determined, as pertaining to our own individual obedience, that a person who contradicts the truth as defined in the BASF is in darkness, and we have no fellowship with such a person, or with those who (while perhaps personally sound) believe they can disobey apostolic commands in fellowshipping such a person." And therein we agree totally with his comments and likewise it is what we show "by our practices". But we do not take the point further and go to the extreme conclusion of imagining that we can establish a new Fellowship institution under which to practice our beliefs.

*     *     *     *     *

4) Does anyone really believe that the man-made name you have written on your "fellowship card" (figuratively speaking) determines if you are in or out of fellowship with God? Does anyone so believing have a single Scripture reference to support this position?

Jim Phillips:A.  No!  We believe that fellowship with God is determined by walking in the light, a thing that appears to me to be impossible, if disobediently fellowshipping with darkness.

Response: I totally agree with brother Phillips' answer.

*     *     *     *     *

5) Did Paul advise brethren who remained loyal to the truth to "start a new fellowship" when "all Asia" turned against him? According to the position of sectarians, Paul must have "fellowshipped errorists and wicked persons" by not behaving as they say we should behave today.

Jim Phillips: A.  I would think the obvious answer to this, based on what we have already shown is, yes!  Paul commanded withdrawal from those in error.  He didn't say, withdraw if you have enough folks in the ecclesia to support you, otherwise, leave the error in.  He didn't say withdraw from brethren in your meeting, but ignore your brethren's problem in the meeting across town.  He said withdraw from "EVERY BROTHER that walketh disorderly...".  The minute Paul or anyone else obeyed this principle, he established another "fellowship."  I see no evidence that Paul did not practice this message which he preached.

Response: Notice again that Jim conflates withdrawal with creating a new Fellowship institution, a repeated theme in his arguments.

Jim believes the "obvious answer" is "yes!" Of course Paul didn't do what Jim says should have been done, even though "all Asia" had turned against him. There is in human nature a remarkable ability to turn the intellectual processing off when confronted with a rhetorical question or fact which is so obviously against what you already believe or want you dearly want to believe. Jim says the answer is "yes!" yet Paul never said to do what Bereans have done. Paul never stated it, he never did he, he never suggested it, he never hinted at it. But "the obvious answer", somehow, is "yes!". Christ never stated it, he never did it, he never suggested it, he never hinted at it, even to those who had Nicolaitanes, Baalimites &c to deal with.

"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. " (John Thomas -- NOT SUGGESTING THAT SOME NEW FELLOWSHIP INSTITUTION BE CREATED AND SPEAKING AGAINST THE FELLOWSHIP WITHOUT EXCEPTION DOCTRINE).

Notice that there was never any precedent in Israel for schismatic Fellowship behavior -- only condemnation to those who forsook the established way -- and it certainly won't occur in the Kingdom. But somehow brethren -- ironically some who are so good at pointing out what good types Israel vs. the modern ecclesia provide -- can justify this unique behavior in this age.

Did Paul break bread in the same fellowship, on the same Sundays that one incestuous Corinthian did? Did he do it even once? Did he therefore "fellowship" wickedness? According to the Berean logic he did. Of all that Paul wrote, he never complained to the Corinthians that they had corrupted his fellowship by their breaking of bread with -- even though they had gone so far as to "glory in" their wrong acceptance of -- the erring brother. In the Apocalyptic letters, ecclesial letters that plainly speak of the corruption that existed in those ecclesias, Christ never once instructed, suggested or hinted at taking the action the Bereans say we should take. There is no "obvious" "yes!". Not in Scripture any way.

Brother Phillips says that Paul in advocating withdrawal is synonymous with starting a new Fellowship. Remarkable logic. Remarkable.

Bereans have only made their position worse by misportraying the pioneer Christadelphians as if they practiced their own form of fellowship, which is demonstrably wrong.

*     *     *     *     *

6) Did the Lord Jesus Christ advise the faithful brethren of any of the seven ecclesias of the Apocalypse — a minority in most of those ecclesias — to "start a new Fellowship"?

Jim Phillips: A:  Same answer as number five.  Of course he did. 

Rev 2:14-16 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Here Jesus is telling the ecclesia at Pergamos that they have in their midst those who teach the error of Balaam.  They also have in their midst those that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans.  Jesus tells them that because these false believers were in their midst, that he had somewhat against them.  The Nicolaitans were a Christian "fellowship" which was kept distinct from the believers in their "fellowship" in Ephesus, but included in their "fellowship" in Pergamos.  Those in Pergamos were told this was wrong.  They couldn't walk in darkness, and have fellowship with Christ  Therefore they were commanded to "repent" which means go back and change!  If they didn't change, Jesus warned them that their lampstand was going to be removed.  It is hard to see how this could be any plainer. 

Those ecclesias who refused the Nicolaitan "fellowship" and the Synagogue of the Satan "fellowship" such as Ephesus and Smyrna were commended.  Those who welcomed the Nicolaitan "fellowship," the Synagogue of the Satan "fellowship, " the Balaam "fellowship," and the Jezebel "fellowship" were condemned.

Response: The command was to 'repent'. It was not to GO OUT of the community and start a new Fellowship -- it was not to forsake the assembling of brethren as the manner of some was (who were condemned for doing so) -- and start a new Fellowship. So brother Phillips answer is no answer but a conflation of truth and error. He starts with one principle, withdrawal, and substitutes others radically different in its place, excommunication and a new fellowship.

Jim says there were "the Nicolaitan 'fellowship'", "the Synagogue of the Satan 'fellowship'", "the Balaam 'fellowship'", and "the Jezebel "'fellowship'". The suggestion is that, "see there were already all these Fellowships". In fact there was only one Christian fellowship and all the faithful persons in those ecclesias were in fellowship with one another. We do not read of any commendation of the Apollos Fellowship or the Pauline Fellowship. There were no rival Fellowships as have been established following the deaths of John Thomas and Robert Roberts.

 

*     *     *     *     *

7) Is there a single verse in the Bible that ever advises someone to "start a new Fellowship". If the truth is already established, as is admitted by Christadelphians of all fellowships to have occurred circa 1847, is there a valid Scriptural premise on which to "start a new Fellowship"?

Jim Phillips: A:  How many verses do you want?  I would think the two we have used so far (2 Thess. 3:6; Eph 5:11) should suffice, but there are many more.  These verses require the believer to separate from error.  Believers who separate from the error, then join together with others who have separated from the error, form a new "fellowship" (which isn't really a new, but a continuation of the old in place of the corrupted one that had supplanted it.)  If the brethren were commanded to withdraw from the error, and if they obediently did so, what, bro. Genusa, do you think they were to do?  Were those who were obedient not to continue to assemble themselves together, and if they did so, did they not form another "fellowship?"

Response: Well, I don't mean to be too demanding so how about JUST ONE VERSE? Jim cites

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. 2 Th 3:6.

I see a principle of withdrawal but nothing about starting a new Fellowship or new fellowship. Brother Phillips cites,

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. Eph 5:11.

I see the same thing here and still nothing about forsaking the assembling of brethren and starting a rival community. Brother Phillips, I would like you to address my argument. I have never ever disputed that there are verses which require the believer to separate from error. According to your argument we should incessantly be creating new Fellowships. I know this is the behavior of some but that is not equivalent to Scriptural authority. I am asking for a verse that says we should do what Bereans claim we should do. I know for a fact you are fellowshipping an adulterer disfellowshipped by Central -- you have knowledge of this situation and yet you accept him. Therefore your fellowship is, according to you own logic totally corrupt and a haven of iniquity. Do you want to apply your argument to your own position or no? You have no problem complaining about Central's problems.

 

*     *     *     *     *

8) Does the Spirit of God ever advise men to "go where they feel the most comfortable"?

Jim Phillips: A:  No.  The spirit gives very clear and expressed commands about how the principles of fellowship work.  We are commanded to separate from darkness through a procedure outlined in Matt. 18.  This procedure is a safety net for the accused and the accuser, if properly carried out.  It allows all the caution necessary to be sure that no one is falsely accused, and a protection of the truth from those who would corrupt it.  The process is decidedly uncomfortable, if the issues are real.  But if it be found that an individual is in darkness, then following this procedure, no more walking together in fellowship, truth with error, can be tolerated.

While the Spirit expressly forbids walking with darkness, it also commands walking with those of like precious faith.  So, being comfortable or uncomfortable does not enter Scripturally, into the equation.  It is simply a matter of individuals conforming to divine command.  But, of course when individuals of like precious faith, whose interests and very being are focused on the same things, it is only natural that they would feel more comfortable with each other.

Response: 'No'. That's right. So let's try and carry the thought forward without doing a 180 degree reversal before we even get off the runway on this one. Our personal desires are not a factor in the equation. Notice that the words "most comfortable" of my question referred to how a man may feel when he has done what he wants to do which is contrasted with the thing the Spirit of God counsels the man to do. Jim turns the question to a "process" which "is decidedly uncomfortable". eg. disfellowship. Why is it that brother Phillips feels compelled to turn every question into the process of withdrawal? Is there an imbalance here? The truth is not merely abhorring that which is evil -- it is also embracing that which is good and demonstrating self-sacrificing love on behalf of brethren -- even as Christ laid down his life for his brethren. It's a good thing that our Lord did not turn every question about love of his brethren, and sacrifice on their behalf, into condemnation and separation from them!

*     *     *     *     *

9) Does the Spirit of God ever counsel men to make decisions on fellowship based on avoiding problems, or persons, which they do not want to face?

Jim Phillips: A:  This really is the same question as number 8, just asked differently.  There is a procedure which is not hard to follow, uncomfortable though it may be, which we have been commanded to observe.  We first go to the individual who we fear is walking in darkness personally, then with one or two more, and finally, we tell it to the ecclesia.  If he refuses to hear the ecclesia, then withdrawal is the necessary, divinely commanded conclusion. 

Response: The question was "does the Spirit of God ever counsel men to make decisions on fellowship based on avoiding problems, or persons, which they do not want to face." Bro. Phillips turns every question about joining together with others of like precious faith into a summary of withdrawal. Notice the pattern?

*     *     *     *     *

10) Did Paul advise the faithful Corinthians to "start a new Fellowship"? Isn't there an obvious difference between "having no fellowship" and starting or joining a new Fellowship?

Jim Phillips: A:  This is really the third time the same question is raised.  Yes, Paul commanded withdrawal from the errorist, which will result in "joining" or "forming" a new fellowship, even to the Corinthians--though we have no idea why special weight would be put on Corinth over, say, Galatia.  Paul says to the Corinthians who were reluctant to withdraw from the fornication in their midst, that even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us (1 Cor. 5:7.)  Is Paul's point not that sin is such an evil, such a terrible thing that even the sin that Christ bore needed to be destroyed as a condition of salvation?  And if sin was required to be put away in the most perfect man, why would an ecclesia continue to allow the toleration of sin in this individual? 

No, there is no difference between withdrawal from the errorist, and joining or forming a new "fellowship."  If you withdraw from the error, you are out of his fellowship.  If there are faithful brethren around, you are obligated by divine command to associate with them.  Paul's command was to "come out from among them and be ye separate."  It was not, "Come out from among them, but identify with them."

In Central "fellowship" today, there are individuals who believe that they can be in Central "fellowship" without actually fellowshiping the errorists of Central "fellowship."  I've never had the position actually Scripturally explained to me, though I have asked.  In any discussion I've had with these brethren, we never seem to be able to get past the supporting reasons, and into the actual commands which these brethren think justify their position. 

For instance, I'm told that I shouldn't leave Central "fellowship" because that would make me a hireling.  Well, that may or may not be true.  If there is a command which councils staying in the "Synagogue of Satan,"  but not fellowshiping any of its members, then this would be right, and bro. Booker's explanation (which would make me a hireling,) would be correct.  But if there is no such command to continue to identify with an apostate organization, (even though you don't fellowship with its members)  then bro. Roberts' explanation of the parable of the Good Shepherd is correct, and I'm not a hireling, but rather am "walking in the light" in making it clear that I am separate, having come out from among them.  But in any case, this is a supporting reason which will be claimed by which ever side has the true command on their side.

Another supporting reason given to us is "Paul fellowshiped error therefore we should follow his example."  First, if this position is true, why do you separate from error at all?  Why do you form a separate fellowship within the main body of the Central "fellowship"?  Secondly, and more to the point, did Paul ever give us a command to fellowship error?  Paul fellowshiped the error while he waited for the ecclesia to handle the matter.  We do the same thing, after Paul's example.

But Paul made it clear that this was not to be a perpetual state.  He asked the Corinthians, "What will ye, shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?" 

Response: There is an obvious difference, to any who are not schismatically biased in their thinking, between "having no fellowship" and starting or joining a New Fellowship.

The arguments Jim addresses bear no resemblance to the arguments I've made. Jim indicates that the best answer he's ever been given is that "I'm told that I shouldn't leave Central "fellowship" because that would make me a hireling." That is an argument — in fact it is an argument made by the Lord Jesus Christ so it must have an application to those who flee from wolves — but it is not my present argument. I do hope my arguments have a little more weight than just that one:

http://www.genusa.com/Truth/TheDoctrineOfFellowship.html
http://www.genusa.com/fellowship/JimPhillips_1.html
http://www.genusa.com/fellowship/JimPhillips_Answers.html

 

 

*     *     *     *     *

11A) There are some who contend that an (essentially) pure worldwide community is necessary so as to not "fellowship errorists and wicked persons."

Jim Phillips: A:  No one believes they are in a pure fellowship.  What we believe is that we must walk in the light, and that walking in the light includes keeping the darkness out of our ecclesias by following the commands of Jesus and Paul. 

Response: "No one believes they are in a pure fellowship." Then is 'purer' acceptable? If brother Phillips will notice, I said "(essentially) pure". If it isn't pure it must have some corruption in it. Brother Phillips then restates the obvious.

Notice that by answering an argument that isn't made, "No one believes they are in a pure fellowship" brother Phillips ignores the point: "an (essentially) pure worldwide community is necessary so as to not 'fellowship errorists and wicked persons.'" This he cannot argue with since that is the justification for his separation from Central.

 

11B)  If the premise of this position is true, then it must be true that they fellowship adultery when the adulterer keeps his sins hidden from the community. If it be claimed that other men are not responsible — and not in fellowship — when sin or errors are hidden or unknown then the worldwide-pure fellowship position is conveniently selective as to when worldwide-pure fellowship occurs. By what means does fellowship in such a case occur or not occur?

Jim Phillips: A:  This entire premise of a pure fellowship is not correct.  The wisdom from above is first pure.  "Fellowships" such as we have now are men and women, doing the best we can in sin laden bodies which can never be pure.  That makes responding to this difficult.  But regardless, bro. Genusa is offering some of the most unusual logic that we have ever read pertaining to fellowship.  God does not hold individuals personally responsible for what they do not know, only what they know.  Bro. Genusa appears to recognize this in number three, above, where he writes "Our position towards others then is not centrally controlled but rather, exercised locally radiating outward to the extent that responsibility, opportunity and any authority allow."  This is simple.  If we know of a problem, then we have responsibility towards that problem, and the authority, after following divine procedure, to withdraw ourselves.  If we don't know of a problem, then we have no responsibility, and we have no authority to withdraw ourselves. 

Did not Jesus explain this principle to the Pharisees:  "If ye were blind, ye should have no sin..."?  And Paul makes the same point:  "For until the law, sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed where there is no law."  This is the same responsibility that was exhibited in the sin offering, under the law.  This was an offering for sins of ignorance.  But the offering is not required when you are still ignorant of the sins, but afterwards, when they came to light, when the sins committed in ignorance were exposed.  This argument by bro. Genusa attacks the simple Christadelphian principle that light brings responsibility.

A fellowship is not responsible for fellowshiping error when it discovers it has error in its midst.  We were Scripturally promised we would have error come into our midst, both from outside, and from within. We are given specific commands on how to deal with this.  It is only after a fellowship accepts the error, and bids it "Godspeed" that that "fellowship" ceases to be walking in the light.

Response: The unusual logic is not my own but the logic of schismatic fellowships demonstrated. Brother Phillips confirms it when he writes, "A fellowship is not responsible for fellowshipping error when it discovers it has error in its midst." Brother Phillips, missing the point claims, "This argument by bro. Genusa attacks the simple Christadelphian principle that light brings responsibility."

In 2nd Corinthians 6:15 Paul argues that the joining of a believer with an unbeliever is like Christ being joined to Belial. Now if a community of believers (Christ as the type) fellowships error (Belial) then there is a concord or fellowship between Christ and Belial -- a thing that obviously cannot occur. Now, the only conclusion that one can make is that if this concord exists, it is not because the community of believers is representing Christ. Brother John Thomas, apparently unknown to brother Phillips, makes the exact same argument in application to marriage with the unbeliever -- who I suppose brother Phillips will grant did not "attack the simple Christadelphian principle that light brings responsibility"!

Brother Phillips says that responsibility for fellowshipping error only exists where knowledge of that error exists. Very well. It is a fact that the Bereans do not always act when they have knowledge, a thing they condemn in others, but grant for themselves under the plea of "the frailties and inconsistencies of human nature". Does he question whether brethren in Central did not "discover" error in our midst some time after 1847 and continuing through today? Why does he refuse to recognize that since that time brethren have been recognizing it and fighting it?

 

11C)  And does the breaking of bread need to be repeated when fellowship is interrupted by sin?

Jim Phillips: A:  Bro. Genusa appears to be looking at fellowship as a very mechanical device.  He thinks we should be concerned by our fellowship being corrupted in some way.  Our fellowship will always be corrupted in some way, because we are all still sinful flesh and incapable of perfection.  The purpose of withdrawing from error is not to maintain a pure fellowship, but to individually walk in the light.  The purpose of withdrawing from error is not to maintain some imagined purity, but rather in individual obedience to God. 

Response: I am only treating it mechanically, in this case, because I am questioning your ideas! See 11D.

 

11D)  To claim that fellowship with errorists occurs when faithful brethren break bread thousands, hundreds, tens or fractions of a mile from errorists is to believe that Christ and Belial, despite the words of Scripture, can be joined when the worldwide perimeters are not kept "pure".

Jim Phillips: A:  Again, bro. Genusa is attributing some magical characteristic to the ecclesia that somehow "fellowships" have the power to join Christ and Belial.  No such magical characteristic exists.  The question Paul asks is rhetorical.  What fellowship can Christ have with Belial?  The answer is obviously none.  So Paul's question to us is, why would you, who should be walking in the light, dare to fellowship those who are not?  Its the same question I have for bro. Genusa.

Response: It is not magical power but simple logic. Jim has stated: "WE ARE IN FELLOWSHIP WITH ALL IN OUR COMMUNITY WHO SHARE THE EMBLEMS." Therefore when an unworthy (as defined in 1st Cor. 11:27, "he that eateth and drinketh unworthily") person, any where in the world who is a member of his community shares the emblems on Sunday all members of the Fellowship are in fellowship with sin, error or disobedience. It's either that or the Berean fellowship is pure (a point brother Phillips denied).

Here is the great irony: Bereans (and other schismatic fellowships) claim Central brethren "fellowship error" but our fellowship doctrine does not claim we have "fellowship with all who share the emblems". If Bereans are held to the standard and practice they claim*, it is they who are partakers with those Berean members who partake unworthily -- unless Bereans can never 'partake unworthily' which raises the question of why Paul wrote that members of the true ecclesia could partake unworthily. Central brethren (those who understand fellowship) make no such claim and therefore can be held to nothing save the Scripture's standards which require no such "fellowship without exception". According to the Bible, the man who partakes unworthily, eats and drinks condemnation to himself, not to all his fellows "who share the emblems", worldwide, and "without exception".

[* "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again"]

This does not negate the responsibilities a person has within his own ecclesia; within the sphere of influence he has; or in promoting, defending and standing for the Truth whereever he/she can. But it does prevent him from pretending to either be a worldwide ecclesiastical policeman, an excessively busy body in other ecclesias' matters, or the opposite in which he washes his hands of any association with his brethren, separating himself from the ecclesial community to keep himself, personally, "clean" in his fellowship practices. God lays neither of these burdens, two opposite extremes, upon His saints.

If the Bereans really did not believe it were possible for Christ and Belial to be joined, as it were, then one wonders why such efforts are expended to keep the world-wide community pure from all they call errorists (that is, "generally", all who are not a member of their Fellowship). But we are not left to wonder: brother Phillips answers "we are in fellowship with all in our community who share the emblems" which effectively requires excommunication of any who would pollute the Berean fellowship table.

 

11E)  Likewise to admit that Christ and Belial cannot be joined is to admit that the worldwide "pure" fellowship position is false.

Jim Phillips: A:  Again, we don't believe our fellowship is pure.  We believe our ecclesias individually are trying to maintain the truth and walk in the light, recognizing the problems we have experienced in the past, and will experience in the future.  The Berean Christadelphians maintain the BASF without reservation in all our ecclesias.  We can't join Christ to Belial, and neither can anyone else.  But we could join ourselves to Belial, by knowledgably bidding "Godspeed" to errorists, or those who disobediently maintain a "Godspeed" position with the errorist.  This is the problem as it exists for our Central brethren, and its the problem bro. Genusa is trying to excuse in himself, because they refuse the divine command to withdraw from the errorists.  The problem seems to them insurmountable, and in fact it is, as it applies to Central.  But it really is no problem for the rest of us.

Response: Well, if its corrupt then why don't you just join us in Central? We do not hide the corruption (even as I took care in recent years not to hide it from some who subsequently joined you!). We likewise believe "our ecclesias individually are trying to maintain the truth and walk in the light". Again, you are mistaken to think I am trying to justify myself. There is no one in your community, or any other, I seek justification from. I know it is of little value to be justified by men. You invited me to demonstrate what I believed to be wrong with your position and in response you accuse me of trying to justify myself!

*     *     *     *     *

12) Fellowship practices tend to one of two extremes and are the result, not of Scriptural design, apostolic practice, or the practice of early Christadelphians*, but the inheritance on the one hand from Churchy liberalism and on the other Churchy sectarianism.

Jim Phillips: A: I don't know very much about the Church's views on fellowship and such.  But from what I do know, I don't know a single church that takes the views of the protestant Christadelphian "fellowships."  If there is one, I'm willing to have it pointed out to me.  But if there isn't one, then isn't this linkage of the protestant Christadelphian"fellowships" to the Church just a disingenuous effort?  What Church has a statement of faith that they insist must be accepted without reservation, as a condition of fellowship?  I can tell from news reports, that this would not be the case in any of the big Churches. 

Response: On the one hand Jim admits he doesn't "know very much" but then uses that dearth of knowledge to positively state that he doesn't "know a single church that takes the views of the protestant Christadelphian 'fellowships.'" In fact the schismatic view of fellowship is equivalent to Church fellowship. A New Fellowship Institution is established and either you are in it or out of it. Just like the Cambellites excommunicated brother Thomas.

*     *     *     *     *

* Despite claims to the contrary. Early Christadelphian fellowship was not sectarian or ever focused on enforcing a worldwide "purity" and was never under a delusion that such a thing was possible. Local responsibility extending its influence as far as was possible was always the documented practice.

Jim Phillips: A:  I have many times asked brethren like bro. Genusa to define what all these words they use mean, especially in regards to the early Christadelphian position.  They can't, or won't. [NOT TRUE]   What do we mean by "early Christadelphians?"  Are we talking about from 1847 through 1854?  In that case I would agree, and point out that bro. Roberts documents the change in bro. Thomas personally, and the Christadelphian movement in general.  During that non sectarian period, Christadelphians were not a separate "fellowship, " but were found in all the Churches of Christ, Baptists, Seven Day Adventist churches, and no doubt others.  The Church of Christ had to disfellowship bro. Thomas to get him to quit attending.  Does bro. Genusa want us to go back to this period, and begin attending the nearest Church of any kind till I'm disfellowshiped?  And then what?  Dare I then form a "fellowship" of believers, or should I just quit altogether? 

Response: Jim Phillips never has asked me "personally" to define what "all these words" used mean. He says, "all these words" but then he only questions "early Christadelphians". I gladly define that term to mean pre-1900. As to what their position was, I quote from them in The Doctrine of Fellowship Considered. Jim asks, "Does bro. Genusa want us to go back to this period". No, I want you to go back to the original position held by John Thomas at the time of his death. His last question as to quitting "altogether" is therefore a false choice.

 

Jim Phillips: Commenting on this part of bro. Thomas' life, bro. Roberts writes:  "At the interview, he was asked "whether, when in the States, he refused to fellowship those Christians who had not been baptised while possessing the opinions which he held?" To this the Doctor answered in the negative, which was the fact, for he had not, at that time, arrived at the conviction he afterwards reached, that duty required separation at the breaking of bread from all who had not been immersed upon a faith in the hope of Israel."  This interview in question took place in 1848, and was conducted by a Campbellite in Britain.  Bro. Thomas continued to defend his policy on non sectarian fellowship at least up to 1851.  So there was clearly a time when the Christadelphian movement was not sectarian.  That period probably didn't last much past 1854.  

But as the Christadelphian movement matured, it separated from the Churches, and became an independent sect.  At that time, that is, during the editorship of bro. Roberts from 1864 through 1898, the Christadelphian position was settled and established.  That is the position that we as Berean Christadelphians practice, and I believe what all the protestant Christadelphian "fellowships" practice.  It is "local responsibility extending its influence as far as was possible."  Does local responsibility have more ability to make its case known in 2006 than it did in 1847?  Of course.  And so our responsibility increases.  Knowledge brings responsibility.

Response: It did not change to the Berean position. This is the myth that has been perpetrated by selective/altered quotations of John Thomas and Robert Roberts. See The Doctrine of Fellowship Considered

 

Jim Phillips: There is no question about whether or not Central permits errorists in their midst.  I can't imagine that anyone would argue otherwise.  If that wasn't the case, bro. Booker's book "Biblical Fellowship" and bro. Genusa's apologies to justify fellowshiping error, would be quite unnecessary.  These things exist to excuse or explain the existence of error in Central "fellowship."  I know bro. Genusa documents the error in Central very well on his web sites, .  So when we come to the question of whether or not we can fellowship Central, the question is, does the Scriptures permit the fellowshiping of errorists?  If we determine the answer is no, then we must withdraw from Central.  If we determine the answer is yes, then we must remain in Central. 

Response: NOT ONCE DO I EVEN ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY FELLOWSHIPING ERROR. JUST TRY TO FIND ONE QUOTE. You may not like my arguments but please do not misrepresent them. My real arguments have been ignored and in their place bro. Phillips has substituted anemic liberal arguments .

 

Jim Phillips: So lets go back to bro. Genusa's assertion, and consider what the "early Christadelphians" believed, pertaining to the points he had raised in these 12 Questions.  I will quote from bro. Roberts' magazine, excerpts which bear directly on the 12 Questions advanced by bro. Genusa.

Point One:  Did the early Christadelphians believe they could be in fellowship with error, even if they themselves were sound?

From "The Nature and Condition of Fellowship in the Truth" SECOND SERIES Christadelphian, 1885, pg 387 by bro. Roberts

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).

Please observe several points here.  First,  and ecclesial must first believe the Truth, which is made up of a number of items or elemenets that are essential to its integrity as a whole.  This is the establishing of the barriers bro. Genusa objected to.  Next, we must withdraw from any in our fellowship who denies any of these fundamental principles.  Third, if a man is sound himself, but is unwilling to separate from those who are not, he himself must be withdrawn from.  That is the simple fellowship teaching of the early Christadelphians.

Response: Jim makes an argument of his own liking and then answers it. In no point did I write something as absurd as "Did the early Christadelphians believe they could be in fellowship with error, even if they themselves were sound?".

Further, he wrote, "This is the establishing of the barriers bro. Genusa objected to." WHERE DID I OBJECT TO BARRIERS? To be accurate, I object to barriers erected by men. I wholly endorse and support Scriptural barriers. You again substitute my argument for one you seem to think I have made. You claim to have portrayed "the simple fellowship teaching of the early Christadelphians" but that has been shown to be a misrepresentation.

 

Jim Phillips: Point Two:  Are we in fellowship with those in our fellowship, if we never receive a visit from them?

From The Christadelphian, 1887, pg 328 by bro. Roberts

Some inaccurate ideas appear to be entertained by some on the subject of fellowship. The think they are not in fellowship with a meeting or ecclesia if they do not pay or receive a visit from it, and that they are only in fellowship with those actually in their midst. If this were correct, there would be no "fellowship one with another" in personal absence, whereas John declares this to have been the case with those from whom he was personally absent (1 John 1:7).

Fellowship is that recognized mutual relation of harmony that only waits the opportunity of personal intercourse for its fullest enjoyment. This harmony exists, or does not exist, quite irrespective of the opportunity of its practical illustration. Suppose, when an ecclesia is asked, "Are you in fellowship with the Mormons?" it should answer that they cannot settle the question as to the Mormons as a body, but must wait for individual Mormons to apply for each individual case to be decided on its own merits. 

SUCH AN ANSWER IS AN EVASION OF THE QUESTION.  And what holds true concerning the Mormons, is true of the Church of England, or of those who will not avow their faith in the infallibility of the Scriptures.  An ecclesia that is not able to say whether they are in fellowship with such, but must wait for individual applications, is evidently in such a doubtful relation to the question as to prevent confidence on the part of men of straight purpose. 

Observe that here is the answer to bro. Genusa's question, as to whether he can be in Central "fellowship" without fellowshiping the errorists in Central "fellowship."

Response: I would appreciate it if you would stop altering quotations from the pioneer brethren whether in striking phrases or changing punctuation. I do not see that you've altered the meaning of the words, but let me have the quotes unaltered and let me judge the quotes myself without your alterations.

The "inaccurate argument" brother Roberts is addressing is not an argument I would make and Jim cannot quote me where I make it. He can only miscontrue my words (based no doubt on his lack of perceiving my arguments) or suggest I've said it but he cannot quote me making the argument because it is not an argument I believe. If I do not believe the argument then I wouldn't make it or suggest it. I do not make the claim to be in fellowship with all in Central -- I have stated that brother Thomas never claimed to be in fellowship with all Christadelphians -- nor did Paul claim to be in fellowship with all who were in his Fellowship... nor do I require all said persons to make application. Bereans have apostasized from THAT PIONEER VIEW OF FELLOWSHIP.

 

Jim Phillips: Point Three:  Do Paul's writings to the Corinthians justify the toleration of error? 

From The Christadelphian, 1890, pg. 173 by Robert Roberts

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.

Response: Brother Phillips, who are you addressing? Apparently not my arguments. Of course Paul's writings do not justify the toleration of error. You cannot quote me saying that they do. Nor do they justify the forsaking of yourselves with brethren or the creation of a New Fellowship institution. Have a look at Paul's writings and you will see what I say is true.

 

Jim Phillips: Point Four:  Bro. Genusa has criticized the Bereans for refusing to take stands on matters which are not part of the BASF, and which demonstrably can be shown not to have been considered matters of fellowship by the early Christadelphians.  In this, he reasons, we are not keeping ourselves pure.  Is this the position of the early Christadelphians? 

From The Christadelphian,

F: We constantly see brethren and sisters do things of which we disapprove, and would not do ourselves. We constantly hear of some item of belief that we consider out of harmony with Scripture teaching. But do you think for a moment that we become responsible for those actions and beliefs because we partake of the emblems with those that practice them?

T: God has allowed liberty in many matters in which conscience must guide us. Hence, what is sin to one may not be to another. You yourself have introduced the word "essentials." By that, we presume you mean "first principles." Only errors which involve those "essentials" or "first principles" should bar our fellowship.

Response: Once again you surprise me with your arguments. I have not criticized you anywhere for "for refusing to take stands on matters which are not part of the BASF". But I have criticized you for adding to the original Christadelphian basis of fellowship. I have criticized you for your Common Constitution, for your Restatement and any other superadded documents you require assent to as a preliminary requirement for fellowship. These documents are CLEARLY NOT THE PIONEER BASIS OF FELLOWSHIP as they had no existence in their day and they did not make all those matters dealt with A MATTER OF FELLOWSHIP as you have. Your position destroys ecclesial autonomy and sets up something resembling a worldwide Church Institution.

 

Jim Phillips: Point Five:  Do these views on fellowship, as established by the early Christadelphians, mean that if a member sins, that Christ and Belial are in fellowship with each other?

F: John wrote: "Our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ" (I John 1:3). Now we read in the same chapter (v. 8) that "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the Truth is not in us," for "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3.23). But, although we are all sinners, yet "we have fellowship with the Father and the Son." Does our fellowship of them involve them in our wickedness?

T: If we are "walking in the Light" [required for fellowship: v. 7], then the "sin" which we have is not imputed to us, but we are covered by the righteousness of Christ (Rom. 4:6-8; Rev. 7:14). Clothed with this garment, we have the fellowship of the Father and the Son. Without this garment, they will not permit us to have their fellowship. While we have fellowship with them, we are "clean every whit" (John 13:10), and thus there is no wickedness for them to be "involved" in.

F: If responsibility for evil is incurred in the case of our brethren, it is also incurred in the cases of the Father and the Son.

T: Are you not reducing God and Christ to your own level? Have you never read that the One forgives through the mediumship of the other? Have you omitted to read the next verse to the one you quote: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins" (1 John 1:9). Bearing this in mind, can you not see that we have fellowship with the Father and Son not as sinners but as children "cleansed from ALL unrighteousness" (same verse), and that therefore there is no sin for the Father and Son to be "involved" in. WITHOUT THIS FORGIVENESS, THERE IS NO FELLOWSHIP. That man is not forgiven who unrepentantly continues in sin, and whose fellowship therefore we cannot knowingly entertain without separating ourselves from the fellowship of the Father and Son.

F: If the Father and Son are not involved in our wrong-doings by the fellowship we are permitted to have with them, then our brethren are not made responsible for our sins by means of that same fellowship they have with us.

T: Firstly, we have shown that there is no wrong-doing for the Father and Son to be involved in. Secondly, we do not believe or teach responsibility for other men's sins; but that it is for our OWN sins in knowingly partaking with unrepentant wrong doers that we are held responsible.

(Frank Jannaway)

Response: I do not believe Christ and Belial can be joined. Nor do our practices, as yours do, suggest we believe they can be joined. Our practices indicate they cannot. My argument is against your FELLOWSHIP WITHOUT EXCEPTION doctrine. And if that falls, as Scripturally, logically and historically it does, your entire system of Fellowship and fellowship falls.

There is one other point I would add brethren and this is in relation to the seriousness of the issue: Those who practice fellowship on non-Scriptural principles, that is to say, man-made sectarian principles, and who perpetuate division are "errorists" in regards to Scriptural fellowship, and arguably worthy of more stripes (Luke 12:48) than those errorists they decry because the former should have known better while the latter have little or no light. Let a man examine himself. The day of judgment rapidly approaches and those who do not declare God's way to be right now will, without exception, have the proclamation loudly ringing in their ears in that day.

 

 

Last Update: 10-Sep-2006