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

This is in response to an article in the March 2007 issue of The Berean Ecclesial News which you will find in the left column below.

If I make one point about this article it is this: Brother Jim Phillips argues that since the early writings of John Thomas "do not represent brother Thomas' final position" on fellowship, that therefore we cannot draw any valid doctrinal principles regarding fellowship from brother Thomas' early writings. In other words, Jim's reasoning is this:

"the early writings do not represent JT's final position"

therefore

everything that brother Thomas wrote about fellowship in his early writings is wrong. As Jim says, in his own words, "The answer is that these ideas advanced by Bro. Thomas were rejected by Bro. Thomas in his later writings".

The statement "the early writings do not represent JT's final position" is a generalization. Jim, who seems to like dealing in generalizations, argues "these ideas advanced by Bro. Thomas were rejected by Bro. Thomas in his later writings". He does not specify which ideas. He just provides his readers with a wide-sweeping charaterization of brother Thomas' early works which itself is based on a generalization: brother Thomas' position on fellowship changed in his latter writings. Those who do not accept fuzzy or muddled thinking will see a big difference in the two ideas, which Jim's argument treats as synonymous in his latest article. This generalization of a generalization is convenient for a Berean arguing on behalf of his fellowship position, but it is not accurate.

These two articles by Jim Phillips in The Berean Ecclesial News are the result of my challenge to the Berean position on fellowship. Since Jim's two articles (and the article ends by indicating that more will follow) are filled with false representations of the position I have argued, and since Jim spends so much time personally slandering me (I am accused of either holding or being in sympathy with clean flesh, of holding the "Open Door" fellowship position, of being anti-pioneer, of being a "Nicodemite" &c ), it is really remarkable that these articles appear in a magazine claiming to represent the purity of God's ways. Jim has created a fictional portrayal of his enemies (those he oddly calls "brethren" in his own articles but are apparently not really "brethren" since we do not carry the Berean Fellowship card). It is a portrayal his Berean readership will instantly recognize as apostate. If they do not know any better, they will accept Jim's false representations and not investigate the matter further. Purity!

 

John Thomas and Fellowship Bro. Roberts Sets the Matter Clear [From The Berean Ecclesial News, March 2007] We are told by our Central brethren, that while no one would take this matter to the extreme of Bro. Thomas, these writings still show his mind on the subject, and therefore we are not justified in ever withdrawing fellowship from other Christadelphian groups. Some even argue that we should extend fellowship to Christadelphian offshoots, such as Benjamin Wilson's "Church of God of the Abrahamic Covenant discussed below." In fact, some in Central have already begun to fellowship these groups. So, if this is the case, why have Christadelphians over the last 150 years refused to behave this way? The answer is that these ideas advanced by Bro. Thomas were rejected by Bro. Thomas in his later writings, and that rejection is confirmed by Bro. Roberts. Here is Bro. Roberts writing in Bro. Thomas' biography, on these very things advanced by some Central brethren, concerning Bro. Thomas' early position. Life and Times of Dr. Thomas: "Shortly after his arrival in London, Doctor Thomas called upon Mr. John Black, elder or pastor of a Campbellite congregation, meeting at Elstree Street, Camden Town, and delivered to him a letter of recommendation from a Campbellite friend in New York. His reception was friendly. A few days afterwards, however, he was requested to meet Mr. Black and Mr. King, as "they deemed some conversation requisite" before inviting him to take part in their fellowship. 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." So here we have a very clear statement from Bro. Roberts that these events which are now trumpeted by Central, did not represent Bro. Thomas' final views. It is hard to imagine how he could have been clearer. But this matter had more play in Christadelphian circles of the past, than just this. Following the Berean 2007 - 93	Jim Phillips and The Berean Ecclesial News. Again.   Jim says, "We are told by our Central brethren, that while no one would take this matter to the extreme of Bro. Thomas, these writings still show his mind on the subject, and therefore we are not justified in ever withdrawing fellowship from other Christadelphian groups." Jim cannot ever quote me saying what he puts in my mouth. He has made a generalization which is a falsehood. The "just so" story which Jim commenced in his previous article continues. That is to say, Jim (falsely) represents my position to his Berean readers in such a way that they will instantly recognize it to be a false position. They will sympathize with Jim's efforts to uphold what they then assume to be the true fellowship position. However, the position Jim relates is one of his own invention. Not an honest portrayal, but a paper tiger he can fight. My true position is never put on the table by Jim, so his readers are left to choose between a blatantly false system, and the defacto Berean position. Jim then relates that some in Central want to fellowship persons from the Church of God. That is true. I have made no secret of that fact (that others want to, not myself and not any who I am associated with near or far) on my web site. He says some in Central are fellowshipping them. That also is true from reports I've heard. But then he says, "The answer is that these ideas advanced by Bro. Thomas were rejected by Bro. Thomas in his later writings". This is where Jim's fuzzy logic resumes. Some of what brother Thomas advanced in his early writings he rejected. Other ideas continued till his death. Jim makes a generalization. In this case it is an unconditional statement that is false. But then, Jim's mission is to support the Berean claims about fellowship, not to challenge his readership's beliefs. Jim quotes from RR's biography of JT and then proclaims: "So here we have a very clear statement from Bro. Roberts that these events which are now trumpeted by Central, did not represent Bro. Thomas' final views." Jim knows that I have never claimed all the ideas set forth in JT's earliest writings were JT's final position. From the beginning of the controversy I have distinguished between the ideas brother Thomas kept and what he rejected. It is Jim Phillips who has and who continues to muddle the issue by suggesting that JT did not keep any of his original ideas about how true fellowship works. Jim underlines these words: "duty required separation at the breaking of bread from all who had not been immersed upon a faith in the hope of Israel". We have never challenged this point. In fact, few in Central would. No true brethren would. Jim emphasizes these particular words, not because they are something we have challenged, but because they are another dishonest suggestion about the position that we have argued against the Berean Fellowship. It is all part of the "just so" story told about the Central Fellowship which make Bereans, who do not know any better, feel good about being in a "pure/purer" Fellowship. Jim wonders how brother Roberts could have been clearer! We have a suggestion or two based on Jim's own confusion: Brother Thomas didn't throw out every early idea he had on fellowship. Brother Roberts did not say he did either. And as Jim will unwittingly go on to show, neither did brother Thomas.
"Partial Inspiration" division of 1885, where Bro. Roberts and the faithful ecclesias withdrew from many brethren, those withdrawn from created a separate body which ultimately became known as the "Suffolk Street" fellowship. In 1891, a member of the Suffolk Street meetings advanced a pamphlet he called "Open Door." It was so called, because it argued for fellowship to be practiced as an Open Door. The pamphlet argued that the actions taken by Bro. Roberts and the faithful ecclesias in 1885 were wrong, and had in it, these same quotes now advanced by so many in Central. The author of the "Open Door" advances these same arguments in opposition to the teaching and practices of Bro. Roberts. He also quotes from an even earlier, 1837 article by Bro. Thomas. Here is Bro. Roberts' response to this article, and the ideas advanced by the pamphleteer: "The argument from Dr. Thomas is inapplicable, unless our friend maintains that the doctor's scriptural enlightenment was complete from the very start. In 1837, he was only beginning to feel his way in many things. He spoke of the whole Campbellite community (to which he belonged) as persons only "beginning to emerge from the smoke of the great city (Babylon)," and it was to persons in this position that he applied the expression of opinion quoted by our friend, in italics, that in performing acts of dis-fellowship, they were "overstepping the bounds of modesty, decorum, and discretion and propriety." In later writings, from which we could precisely quote, if need arose, he plainly laid down the apostolic doctrine that to have fellowship with error in doctrine or practice, was to be responsible for it. Why should our friend go back to 1837, when Dr. Thomas was still in darkness? Why should he have the doctor's remarks of that date "written in letters of gold on every Christadelphian periodical"; and the doctor's later utterances concealed away out of sight in common printer's ink? If Dr. Thomas of 1837, is "our justly esteemed Doctor," what is Dr. Thomas of 1862 when he advised us to withdraw from the fellowship of Dowiesm because of its ambiguous attitudes? Is he not likely to have been more "justly esteemable" after 25 more years acquaintance with the Scriptures than when he was "just emerging from the smoke of the great city?" Why should we be asked to "go the whole way with the Doctor" in 1837, and not the whole way with the Doctor in 1862? There is manifestly here a sympathy with the immaturities of partial enlightenment. "The quotation from the Doctor's answer to David King in 1848 seems to bear out our "open door" friend's view about non-fellowship, but only seems. Even if it really did so, we could not allow it to have any weight against Paul's doctrine on the subject. But it does not do what it appears to do. "The situation must be taken into account. There were no ecclesias in existence. There were Campbellite meetings disposed (some of them) to receive the truth. Dr. Thomas was operating in connection with them in the public exhibition of the truth. David King found fault with the Doctor for doing this, and said he ought to have nothing to do with them after practically dis-fellowshipping them by his re-immersion on receiving the hope of Israel. The letter from which the quotation is made is the Doctor's answer to this. Its 94 - Berean 2007	I have never supported the "Open Door", and Jim knows my web site does not support it -- but that didn't prevent Jim from aligning me with a booklet that clearly teaches false doctrine as he aligned me with Clean Flesh in his previous article. If the doctrine of the "Open Door" booklet were synonymous with "official" Central teaching then one wonders why that booklet was rejected by Central brethren at the time it was written and again in the 1920's around about the same time the Bereans "went out from us"? Apparently Jim is not familiar with the rebuffs the Suffolk Street group received in the 20's and 30's by C.C. Walker -- round about the same time Bereans "went out from us". Or maybe Jim is familiar with that history but it doesn't fit into his story. Or is it that modern Berean leaders, as men are wont to do, will grab hold of any reason to justify their behavior? CC Walker and John Carter never endorsed the teachings of that booklet, nor did Central ever adopt it. Jim says, "these same quotes now advanced by so many in Central" - How many is "so many in Central"? Is there suddenly an avalanche of brethren quoting these quotes, or is it just a convenient muddling of facts -- an easy way to align me with some who hold doctrinal error -- as a justification for personally slandering me? How many web sites is it? One web site? Three web sites? One person who has challenged your misrepresentations? Two? Five? So many in Central! You cannot represent a contemporary honestly. How then will you speak for men who are dead and cannot challenge your misrepresentations? Jim resumes his "filler" material.
essence lies in the remark, that the position was one of "bearing and forbearing with one another in hope that all will come to see the real truth, on which side soever it may be. " The time came when decision on this issue had to be taken, and then, with a new situation, new phases of duty forced themselves on the Doctor's recognition, and among others, the duty of receiving those only who received the Truth. His negative reference to Paul's Corinthian attitude was not one he afterwards insisted on. As for "the dark spirit of Popery," &c, it is his description of the spirit he recognised in the man to whom he was writing. He could not mean that the spirit of conformity to apostolic precept was of this character, and among other precepts is the one to "withdraw from every brother" who refuses to consent to the wholesome words and works of truth (1 Tim. 6:3-5; 2 Thess. 3:6). But, as before said. Dr. Thomas would not be put forward as an authority for any course that could be shown to be opposed to the teaching of the Word. In the above, Bro. Roberts gives us a very clear and precise answer to the questions advanced by some Central web sites. The writings they quote do not represent Bro. Thomas' final conclusions, but were his practice for a period when there were no ecclesias, per se; but only those starting to separate themselves from the fog of Christendom. But we don't simply require Bro. Roberts testimony of Bro. Thomas' belief. It is clear enough in all that he writes after his very early period. Bro. Thomas Himself Sets the Matter Clear The change in the fellowship position of Bro. Thomas was drastic, from 1851 through 1856. In 1859, Bro. Thomas responds to a reformist about his behavior in 1847, and observe the change in position he has, in responding to an attack on his belief of fellowship. The reformist argues that he had "non-fellowshipped" everyone. Of course this had been true of his position in 1847. Now, he says, he fellowshipped those in the Truth. Bro. Thomas, for himself, believed he had "non-fellowshipped" the Reformist movement. This is why he could tell the Campbellites in Britain, that he had not disfellowshipped them. He had "non-fellowshipped" them. The "Non-fellowshipping of the brethren," as stated by Bro. Thomas, is the belief expressed by our Nicodemite brethren that fellowship is between themselves and God, but not necessarily those who broke bread with them. [A Nicodemite brother is one who appears one way, but in secret is another, like Nicodemus following Christ.] As Bro. Thomas went away from this view, he drew the criticism of those he now refused to fellowship. He was then criticized a lot by his former friends for his "non-fellowship" of them. He responded to one, a Millerite, this way, and note how he now denies his former position of "non-fellowship" by affirming he is, in fact in fellowship with certain brethren. Herald 1859 pg 65-70 In the days of our ignorance of the Gospel of the Kingdom we were in denominational fraternity with Nathaniel Field, M. D.; but with Joseph Marsh, as a Christyan, Millerite, or ought else, we have had no Berean 2007 - 95	This paragraph ends the section on brother Roberts clarity. So much for "Brother Roberts Sets the Matter Clear". By "Clear" Jim meant to say "Berean", as in "Brother Roberts Sets the Matter Berean". Brother Phillips took one quote which stated a fact which is not disputed: that brother Thomas changed his position on fellowship. Should he be commended for proving something no one disputes? But brother Phillips thinks arguing the early writings "do not represent brother Thomas' final position" is a conclusive argument which shuts down all further discussion. In Jim's mind he reasons that since "the early writings do not represent JT's final position" that therefore everything that brother Thomas wrote about fellowship in his early writings is wrong. As Jim says, in his own words, "The answer is that these ideas advanced by Bro. Thomas were rejected by Bro. Thomas in his later writings". Jim expects his readers to accept this unconditional claim. Even though he has no quotes from John Thomas or Robert Roberts to advance on that point -- and even though a little thought on the topic would suggest it to be a highly dubious claim. Can you even imagine how reckless it would have been for brother Roberts to make that claim -- that every single point brother Thomas believed about fellowship was wrong (did bro. Thomas believe he could justly forsake the assembling of brethren in his early writings; did brother Thomas' views go so far in 1850 that he believed he could break bread at the Catholic Church?). Yet, Jim Phillips foists this very suggestion -- that everything JT wrote in his early writings regarding fellowship was wrong -- onto brother Roberts' writings. Brother Thomas vs. Berean 'Clarity' In a remarkable turn, brother Phillips now defends brother Thomas' early fellowship position. "He [JT] had 'non-fellowshipped' them." As if to say, brother Thomas had pulled a fast one on his critics. Jim emphasizes the "non-fellowship" part without really tying in the "breaking bread" part. Jim claims brother Thomas "went away from this view". Well, this quote of brother Phillips is from 1859. He's writing about an earlier event in his life, not reprinting something he wrote at that earlier date! This is now 3 years beyond the year that Jim sets for the close of brother Thomas' "drastic" "change in fellowship position". If brother Thomas "went away from this view" then why did he call breaking of bread "non-fellowship" in this more "mature" writing? This is now 1859 and Jim's quote shows that brother Thomas still did not equate breaking bread with "fellowship without exception" or "fellowship with all in our community that partake of the emblems". In his early writings he said the same thing about not being in fellowship with all who partook of the emblems. Again I point out that JT broke bread with those of the "reformation" yet did not consider himself in fellowship with all of them. Now, if brother Thomas rejected everything about fellowship he had formerly believed, as Jim Phillips claims, then we should have found brother Thomas, in this "mature" writing, admitting that he had indeed fellowshipped these apostates by breaking bread with them and that it had been a mistake to fellowship them. But brother Phillips argues the position that brother Thomas did not believe he had been "in fellowship" with all of them (while he broke bread with them) -- and Jim doesn't question that point. If fact it does not seem to occur to Jim that this point is completely at odds with Berean claims. Jim is, again, silent on an important point. So has "Bro. Thomas Himself" set the matter clear, or in setting the matter clear has he not confounded Bereanism once again? Brother Thomas, even post 1856, Jim's own date, did not equate breaking bread with fellowship "without exception" (a.k.a. "with all in our community who partake of the emblems") GVG and his associates did. JT never did. Brother Thomas never went to the Berean view. This is a point Jim will not tell his Berean readers. Not that I would expect Jim to. He's confused in his own logic and willing to overlook a simple point that "sets the matter clear"! What JT did do, "in his latter writings" was bring in a level of responsibility to the act of breaking bread which he had not recognized in his early writings. But he never took it to the extreme that the Bereans have -- worldwide fellowship "with all in our community who partake of the emblems ". That is a basic difference in Bereanism and the pioneer position on fellowship.
ecclesiastical relation. In March, 1847, we left friend Nathaniel in fellowship with all the sentiments (though in the following September he renounced "the Reformation" of A. C); for at that time we publicly renounced all fellowship with "Christendom," and its names and denominations, one and all. Friend Joseph was then floundering in Millerism, and contending with "the saints" above named, and against the items of what , he called " carnal Judaism," wherever they chanced to show themselves. Upon this subject, brethren Joseph Pierce and McMillan, both of Rochester, and members with Mr. Marsh, can tell a tale showing the awful darkness that beclouded his mind. Commenting later about the same Reformists' complaints, Bro. Thomas says: Herald 1859 pg, 84 Nathaniel the Adventist says to the two thousand subscribers of his brother Joseph's Expositor. Referring to the resolution he remarks, " from this it will be seen that Dr. Thomas once acknowledged, in obedience to the dictum of Alexander Campbell, that the doctrine he is now teaching, and for not believing which, he now non-fellowships everybody, was of no practical benefit!!! " Now, when Nathaniel, the gentile indeed, penned this, he doubtless gleefully thought he had cornered us up into a very tight place, indeed; but when he had done laughing and rubbing his hands, and about to eat us up like bread, he would find that we were not there. There are just three falsehoods in the four lines we have quoted. We do not say that they are wilful lies; but the lies of ignorance or stupidity, or of both. If Nathaniel and Joseph cannot interpret scripture more luminously and accurately than said resolution, and our position, they had better stop and go to grass with Nebuchadnezzar, until seven times pass over them, and their reason return unto them. We did nothing "in obedience to the dictum of A.C.," for A.C. said nothing in the premises; secondly, the doctrine we are now teaching "as the gospel and its obedience, we were ignorant of in 1838, when said resolution was so written and its recommendation accepted ; and therefore, we could not, and did not, nor could our friends and enemies agree to say that that doctrine of which we were then all ignorant, " was of no practical benefit." As to fellowship, we fellowship all who can prove by the word that they have believed and obeyed the gospel of the kingdom prophesied of by Moses and the prophets, and preached by Jesus and the apostles; but as President Campbell and the Arcadian brothers, Joseph and Nathaniel, cannot work out the demonstration, we cannot admit that they are anything more than a theoretical improvement upon Millerism. So in 1847, he had non-fellowshipped everyone, but broke bread with everyone. Now in 1859, we find him explaining his position and responding to critics irritated that he will no longer fellowship with them, break bread with them, or cooperate with them in any way. His position has completely changed. We can see the change coming in his writings. By 1853, Bro. Thomas' position as to meeting with the enemy has significantly changed. Writing in the Herald he wrote: 96 - Berean 2007
The Herald, 1853 The Truth creates "sides;" the for-it side, and the against-it side; and between these two sides there is no neutral ground. He that is not for me, said Jesus, is against me; and he styled himself "the Truth." If we are for the Truth, we cannot encamp with the enemy, and co-operate with them. Being for the Truth, it will place us in the minority, and identify us with those who suffer for the Truth's sake. He that runs with the hare, but holds with the hounds, will never save the fugitive from being worried to death. There were men in the days of Jesus w|io would preach his doctrine and not speak lightly of him, but would also carefully avoid identification with his unsavoury name. This is referable to the pride of life, love of popularity, or to some other equally unworthy thing. It is certainly a course not prompted y a devotion to the Truth, or a love of righteousness. Moses acted not thus. He renounced the throne and treasures of Egypt for the society of enslaved brick-makers. The other course evinces indecision of character which cannot be approved of the Lord when he comes. Sky-kingdomism is unscriptural and wholly false, and therefore subversive, wherever it prevails, of "the Gospel of the Kingdom of God," which is wholly Scriptural and only and altogether true. If I identify myself, without a standing protest against it, and with those who believe and advocate it, I become by example an enemy of that which I believe is true. Note the change over two years. In 1851, it didn't matter who he broke bread with, or cooperated with in various projects. Now he says, he cannot co-operate or encamp with those who do not hold the Truth. It is, in fact, our Nicodemite brethren that Bro. Thomas is writings about here. They hold doctrine with the hare (the Bereans,) but they run with the hounds (Central). We next see the change in attitude in the recording of a baptism of a former Campbellite. Herald, 1854, November "The discourse being finished, Mr. Harris, a member of the Campbellite church meeting at Corinth, in that county, a respectable man, and of good standing with his brethren, applied to me to assist him in obeying the gospel of the Kingdom in the name of Jesus Christ. It was therefore arranged that he should meet me there on the morrow with changes of raiment, and that I should immerse him after the people were dismissed. On his return home he communicated his intention to his ecclesiastical associates of putting off Campbellism with the old man, and of putting on Christ by being immersed on an intelligent belief of the Kingdom's gospel, and from whose fellowship he announced his purpose to withdraw. He did this, not that it was necessary, but to prevent them from saying that he had treated them with disrespect." So in 1848, brethren could be baptized and maintain their relationship with Campbellism, now the baptism was recognized as "putting off Campbellism" and a withdrawal of fellowship from that group. Note the change in Bro. Thomas' attitude towards fellowship. Prior to this, he wasn't willing to say that we could be in fellowship with error. Now he acknowledged that the brother had, in fact, been in fellowship with the Campbellites, and he was coming out from that fellowship. This demonstrates a further change in attitude. Berean 2007 - 97	This is more of the story Jim is telling which just talks around the real issues.
Clearly by 1856, the fellowship policies which require separation from error now practiced by Bro. Thomas, are coming under severe attack by his former friends. The following is a response to an article written against his new fellowship practices which exclude old associates, who in some cases did not know, and in other cases did not obey the gospel. The following is very significant, for it shows that Bro. Thomas now not only requires belief in the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ, but he also requires those he meets with to require the same. This is the Berean position. He writes that the rule of sanctification is faith in the things of the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ, and that these principles must be applied by them whose fellowship is sought. The removal from the reformists camp got Bro. Thomas branded with the name of an Ishmaelite, and an Iron Bed Stead maker, expressions his critics felt indicated a position of constant strife. In making his charges against Bro. Thomas, the man started out with the obligatory, "Of course we should not receive the unsanctified into our bosom." This is not unlike our Central brethren, who also give lip service to fellowship, saying that of course they cannot receive the heretic into fellowship. Then, just as this critic of Bro. Thomas, they do. Herald 1856, pg. 69 - 70 PROOF OF SANCTIFICATION "We should not receive the unsanctified into our bosom ;" that is, we suppose the writer means, into our fellowship. This is also true. But by what rule or standard is their unsanctifledness to be determined? And by whom are the principles of that rule to be applied? An Ishmaelite, or iron bedstead manufacturer, says the rule of sanctification is faith in the things of the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 8:12), and the baptism of such a believer "into the name of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Spirit;" and in answer to the second question, he says, the principles must be applied by them whose fellowship is sought. A man claims admission into their bosom who says he is sanctified. Are they bound to receive him on his simple assertion? If it be answered "yes," then they would be bound to receive Archbishop Hughes and his master the Devil, for they both say they are sanctified! It is evident, then, that a man's sanctification cannot be admitted on mere assertion. Evidence of sanctification must be adduced. But it is no use producing evidence, if it is not to be judged, "Judge not that ye be not judged, " does not then apply to judging the evidence. Men are commanded to "try the spirits " which can only be done by examination of evidence and testimony. A man, then, must produce proof of his assertion before his sanctification can be admitted by those whose fellowship he claims. This is Scriptural and rational, however much of bigotry and sectarianism there may be in it according to modern Christian liberalism, which after all is said, is but a species of infidelity. If said claimant say, "I was sanctified when I experienced a hope of pardon;" and on further inquiry, he confess that he 98 - Berean 2007	Jim writes, "he also requires those he meets with to require the same. This is the Berean position". No, that is not the Berean position. The Berean position is worldwide fellowship with all who partake of the emblems. The Berean position is excommunication in practice, though not in word. The Berean position is circa 1950 "Fellowship defining material" (GVG) which raises the walls higher than Scriptural authority and example calls for and to change the climate within the Berean community to be one that would never allow for another reunion with Central. Jim writes, "This is not unlike our Central brethren, who also give lip service to fellowship, saying that of course they cannot receive the heretic into fellowship." Lip service is when you say but do not. Jim has yet to demonstrate how I am guilty, except he likes to make generalizations that do not represent reality.
was ignorant of the purpose of God in relation to Palestine, the Twelve Tribes, and the nations, with Abraham, Christ, and the Saints' connection therewith; it is therefore certain, whatever he may have believed about Jesus, that he was ignorant of the gospel or the truth. Devoid of this, no man can be sanctified, for it is the sanctifying principle. When Jesus prayed for the sanctification of his disciples he said, "Sanctify them by the truth: thy doctrine— 6 Xoyog 6 ooq—is truth." The Spirit sanctifies when the doctrine of God sanctifies ; and a man's sanctification by the truth is known when, confessing what Jesus confessed before Pilate, he is "washed, sanctified, and justified, by his name and God's Spirit"—1 Cor. 6:11; Rom. 10:8; 1 Tim. 6:3, 4, 12-13. The sanctification of men, be they dipped or sprinkled, baptized in ignorance of the promises covenanted to them who love God, is a dogma of the Apostacy, which we sincerely, earnestly, and faithfully, advise all to repudiate, who favour a return to the doctrine and practice of the primitive believers. EDITOR. This article had been preceded by a similar expression concerning fellowship. A reformist again gave lip service to maintaining principles of fellowship, but then excused them. Bro. Thomas pointed out that such men find the principles of the Truth to be exclusive, unchristian, and Ishmaelitish (meaning in harmony with Bro. Thomas). Does this not sound familiar? Is this not exactly what our Nicodemite brethren say of us? Bro. Thomas and those with him are condemned for "judging thy brother." Bro. Thomas points that these are tools used by the unfaithful to silence the application of the principles of the Truth. (to be continued)                                          —Bro. Jim Phillips	Here is Jim's final argument. He writes, "Does this not sound familiar? Is this not exactly what our Nicodemite brethren say of us?" What is that thing? That the Bereans are "Ishmaelites". This is Jim's logic: there were those who called brother Thomas an Ishmaelite and Non-Bereans call us Ishmaelites ERGO We Bereans hold the same fellowship position as John Thomas. But did it never occur to brother Phillips that a man may act like an Ishmaelite and that in so doing he justly earns the label for himself? I notice that the article calls Central brethren, "brethren". But Bereans do not "love", agape, or phileo or "fervently" love all the brethren for whom Christ died -- if the word "brethren" means anything. Rather, it is a badge of honor for separatists to stand apart from all non-Bereans brethren and to condemn them! Brethren? Just look at the way Jim has falsely represented me in a leading Berean magazine! "Brethren"! But I have digressed. I do find this "Ishmaelite" claim interesting. It is a repeated claim of Bereans that non-Bereans consider the Bereans to be Ishmaelites (to wit, Jim's article and another Berean web site which has responded to me on the subject of fellowship). But it isn't that this label is freely bandied about except by Bereans in self-defense. Bereans say it, self-defensively without anyone but the Berean raising the point. Perhaps it is a rallying cry, "we are under attack! join together in defense!"? Or it's an attempt to put fellow Bereans on the defensive while giving them a common point to bond together on: "look, people are saying bad things about you, but they say bad things about me too, so we have something in common that unites us (and we do not like those people who say that, do we?)". Personally, I think there's conscience at work. I think some Bereans have read this accusation against brother Thomas and, sensing the character of their own position, have chosen to identify themselves with the accusation against brother Thomas as a rallying point. It is Bereans who constantly accuse others of calling them Ishmaelites, more often than they are actually accused of being Ishmaelites! I think it is a conscience that is trying to convince itself that what in reality is wrong should be seen as right. Yes, there is really such a thing as an Ishmaelite. Just because someone calls you (or you suggest others call you) an Ishmaelite does not mean you are an Ishmaelite. It's belief and behavior. Thou that teachest others not to slander... dost thou also slander? Thou that teachest another not to not lie... dost thou lie? "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup."