Fellowship Debate Material - The Measure and Standard of Fellowship

The Fellowship Debate Material

"The Measure and Standard of Fellowship"

Introduction: This line of questioning is designed to establish, for the record, what the Christadelphian "measure and standard of fellowship" is. It is quite clear from all Christadelphian writings that, doctrinally speaking, the "First Principles" are the "measure and standard of fellowship". Bereans do not deny this. So let's have them assent, for the record, to what everyone knows is true. This, along with a few other details associated with this principle, are established so that later we can test whether or not Berean practices really conform to what they must admit.

Update September 29th 2007: Bro. JP of the Bereans is answering my questions -- rather, I should say, he has started to answer them. The first series of questions are easy questions, as I stated above "what everyone knows to be true". We will see how far he wishes to proceed. Unfortunately, bro. Jim, for some reason, never emailed me to tell me what he was doing and that he was giving me an opportunity and deadline to respond, though he, or some other Berean, spread notice of Jim's first answers to the four winds of the Berean community via an email. Some of bro. JP's answers are long and unnecessary (as will be seen by referring to his original) so rather than paste the full answer, readers who think I may have left out some critical argument he makes may read his full answer here.

Update October 9th 2007: JP is apparently unwilling to provide his readers with a direct link to this site...

Jim P of the Bereans has revised his answers page. Readers may refer to his full answers as linked to above if they wish. Beginning with this round I have decided:

Not to answer some of his historical claims which, even though they are incorrect, are either tangential or irrelevant to the case I am making. I do recommend that interested students research JP's claims as, frankly, even some Bereans disagree with some of what JP claims. For example, JP claimed that the principle of light making responsible had not been made a matter of fellowship prior to 1894. The quote he supplied spoke of the South London ecclesia, not Birmingham -- if JP had checked the context he would have known this. Then he claimed bro. Thomas did not view the principle of light making men responsible to be a matter of fellowship. Bob W, of the Bereans has published material to the contrary here and here. BW wrote, it was "A First Principle of the Doctrine of the Christ" "from the earliest years of the Christadelphian community". JP denies that to be true.

Not to answer his personal attacks and mischaracterizations which would only dilute the doctrinal and historical arguments I've made. I have laid out a doctrinal and historical case against Berean claims. Jim prefers to muddy the waters by putting me on personal defense. Jim characterizes me on his web site as an "apologist", a "Nicodemite", a "supporter of errorists", an advocate of "open door" fellowship and other falsehoods/adjectives. Responding to him would not serve the interests of the Truth. Christ will judge me in due time and bro. Jim will have to show a measure of patience in this respect.

We now turn to the questions which demonstrate Berean unfaithfulness to apostolic and original Christadelphian teaching and practice.

Brother Roberts wrote, "Nothing short of fidelity to the whole Truth can be accepted as a safe policy. The 'things concerning the Kingdom of God' and 'those things that concern our Lord Jesus Christ,' in their scriptural amplitude must be the measure and standard of fellowship. Those who go for less than this must be left to themselves. " (Robert Roberts, My Days and My Ways). Would it be a fair assessment to say that in this quote brother Roberts defined ”the whole Truth” as “The ‘things of the Kingdom of God’ and ‘those things that concern our Lord Jesus Christ,’ in their scriptural amplitude”? (emphasis mine).
[ JP: If by 'scriptural amplitude' you mean our Statement of Faith with the Doctrines to be Rejected and the Commandments of Christ, enforced in fellowship; then yes. ]

No, the quote does not mention the BASF/DTBR/CoC enforced in fellowship. The question was, Would it be a fair assessment to say that in this quote brother Roberts defined ”the whole Truth” as “The ‘things of the Kingdom of God’ and ‘those things that concern our Lord Jesus Christ,’ in their scriptural amplitude”? (emphasis mine).
[ JP: Bro. Roberts, throughout his lifetime, was very clear as to how he defined "the whole truth" in regards to fellowship. It was defined quite succinctly, and as I have stated it. The longer time went on, and the larger the body grew, the more in harmony all faithful ecclesias became with these principles. Your simple definitions do not suffice for serious discussion.
SG: The quote from brother Roberts states a principle, not a full definition of The Faith itself. It is a principle one assumes a Berean could give a straight Yes or No answer to, without interpolations. Debates usually begin by trying to establish simple principles upon which other principles will be built. I must leave readers to decide if the quote from brother Roberts "[does] not suffice for serious discussion". The Berean interpolation is another evidence that Bereans cannot establish their claims without making assumptions and reading things into Christadelphian history which don't really exist. ]

Did brother Roberts recognize other Christadelphian ecclesias' Statement of Faith as a valid basis of fellowship? I do not mean just any SOF, but were there other ecclesias, who had an SOF different from Birmingham, which brother Roberts recognized as being "in fellowship"?
[ JP: Certainly he did. There is nothing magical about the BASF and accompanying documents. It was and is possible to write the same principles in other formats. It was the confusion generated by those who supported errorists and who feared a forthright declaration of the truth; who made a unifying of these documents desirable to the faithful brethren. The confusion allowed error a foothold. The unifying of our position took that foothold away.

SG: Jim, why did you blunt your admission with words which mislead? We are not talking about "formats" or "magic". We are talking about other "expressions" -- different words -- expressing the same principles. And we are talking about what the pioneer practices were... nothing to do with "magic" as far as I can see. Now, JP, this is only question #3 and you have already admitted that your basis and practice of fellowship is different from the position supported, advocated and practiced by brother Robert Roberts. Brother Roberts did not "support errorists", nor did he fear a forthright declaration of the truth, and yet the "confusion" you say existed was, as a matter of historical fact, due to a policy and practice bro. Roberts helped establish! Not only did he help establish, advocate and practice the policy you reject, he resisted the course Bereans took (as demonstrated later in the debate). Perhaps you will then allow that "faithful ecclesias" and "faithful brethren" do not have to adopt the policies Bereans adopted in 1923, 1960 and 1980? You say those who do not adopt your policies "fellowship errorists" yet you do not make the same charge against bro. Robert Roberts? Is this not the use of "divers weights"? You say your unifying position took away a 'foothold' of error, a "foothold" which the pioneer position allowed -- a thing you admitted. Then, the question is, were the Berean actions Scriptural. Is it a "foothold" God allows you to take? Not according to pioneer practice which is what Bereans have falsely claimed to uphold. And then, what was the price to be paid in taking the position you have taken? I have yet to see any Berean admit that the Berean policy has a "cost" associated with it or to try and justify that it is a policy with any Scriptural precedent. And finally, your position established a union of ecclesias which is a serious step towards the apostasy. Rome would have had no power without an ecclesiastical union to empower it. I am sure you can write some justification for all this Jim, and also to continue your attacks upon those who do not support Bereanism. But I am now confident that it amounts to nothing more than vanity. Some brethren dismiss the "good intentions" of those who hold error but seem to think that their own baptism gives them an unlimited license to practice the same, despite any harmful consequences -- and to claim to uphold the pioneer position and practice while having to admit they really do not. ]

Is it true that another term for “The things of the Kingdom of God” and “those things that concern our Lord Jesus Christ” are called “First Principles”?
[ JP: Yes ]

From the same quote would it be a fair assessment to say that brother Roberts’ position was that “the measure and standard of fellowship”, so far as doctrine is concerned, “must be” the “First Principles” in their scriptural amplitude?
[ JP: Yes ]

Bro. Frank Jannaway wrote, "When I embraced The Truth in 1875 (and, by The Truth I mean the First Principles set out in the Birmingham Statement of Faith), there was, to my knowledge, but one community holding those First Principles as a Basis of Fellowship. That community was known as 'Christadelphian.'" (Frank G. Jannaway, Christadelphians, Then and Now, p. 4-5). Would it be a fair assessment of brother Jannaway’s statement to say that brother Jannaway (young though he was in 1875 being only 16), understood the “Basis of Fellowship” to be “The Truth” as embodied in the “First Principles” then known as the Birmingham Statement of Faith?
[ JP: Yes, understanding that the term "the Statement of Faith" is a shorthand expression for all that makes up our basis of fellowship ]

In 1927 brother F. G. Jannaway wrote, "The object of this little work is to make as plain as possible why so many Christadelphians the world over have been compelled to stand aside from the Birmingham (Temperance Hall) Fellowship” (Frank G. Jannaway,, Christadelphians, Then and Now, p 3.). Two pages later he goes on to write, “Doubtless some will ask ‘Then why not fellowship all such pending the Judge's decision? Why allow divergent views on one of our thirty First Principles to be a bar to present fellowship ?’” (emphasis mine; FGJ, Christadelphians, Then and Now, p. 5). From these two quotes, do you agree that it was FGJ’s judgment that the action taken in standing aside from “the Birmingham (Temperance Hall) Fellowship” was because “one of our thirty First Principles” was no longer being upheld by “the Birmingham (Temperance Hall) Fellowship”?
[ JP: It was included, certainly. But the matter pertaining specifically to Birmingham (Temperance Hall) Fellowship had more to do with the Commandments of Christ.
SG: I am simply quoting FGJ and asking if you accept FGJ's portrayal. It appears you do not. He says nothing about the CoC. If he were not explicit in saying "one of our thirty First Principles" I could allow your interpolation but it cannot be allowed due to his specificity. ]

In The Berean, 1929, co-editor of The Berean magazine, W. J. White writes, “The Scriptures plainly reveal to us that God requires, as the basis of fellowship, identity of belief in regard to the First Principles of the Truth. Our duty, then, is to uphold this truth, and to be faithful to God's requirements in this matter, by inviting to our fellowship only those who are of one mind with ourselves upon these vital truths.” (1929, p. 12). Do the Bereans today endorse this statement without reservation?

[ JP: Yes, within reason. There are apt to be small, insignificant changes in the way some first principles are believed by brethren, but the essential and fundamental principles are held in common. We might call this the difference in "True Principles" and "Uncertain Details." ]

The quote does not deal with "Uncertain Details" so why interject the phrase? It says, "the First Principles of the Truth". Do the Bereans today endorse the statement above from WJW without reservation?
[ JP: There are aspects, even in the statement of faith which are of the nature of uncertain details, (at least if read like a lawyer) and there are differences of opinion accepted on some of these things. ]

Brother G.V. Growcott, dealing with the exceptive clause wrote, “My own private thought would be that if they sought strength from God in constant prayer, they would be given the ability to endure any condition they found themselves in. This would be my private inner view, but in the light of what Paul says, and not being able to judge how others are constituted, I could not force this view upon them as a matter of First Principle, and therefore of fellowship.” Would it be fair to say that bro. G.V. Growcott’s “measure and standard” (RR) of fellowship was the same “measure and standard” as that stated by Robert Roberts, and Frank Jannaway, that is, the “First Principles” of the Gospel?
[ JP: I'm not sure as to the relevancy of the quote, but the answer to your question is, yes, bro. Growcott was very careful to insist upon the first principle of truth enforced in fellowship, while being equally careful not to place requirements on our brethren that God did not place. ]

Are there any "First Principles" of the Gospel which brother John Thomas did not discover before his death?
[ JP: No. But are you asking me if the written position of Christadelphians changed after bro. Thomas' death, certainly it did.
SG: No, I was not asking you about the written position (yet). The question is clear enough. Your comments regarding JT and resurrectional responsibility are not accurate. Brother Thomas was against making "the degree of punishment" a matter of fellowship (see your own reference again). Brother Thomas' own summaries of the Gospel from various times shows your assertion cannot be true. And further, your quotation of June 1894, p. 242 is lacking context. It was the South London Ecclesia which is being referred to, not Birmingham. If the statement were true of the Birmingham ecclesia the 1898 amendment would not have been a "reaffirmation" which is what they called it. Your lack of historical knowledge about the resurrectional responsbility issue surprises me and your statements will, sadly, serve as fodder for those who want to deny clause 24. ]

Did brother Robert Roberts discover any new “First Principles” of the Gospel after the death of brother John Thomas?
[ JP: No, with the same qualifications ]

In an article originally written by Frank G. Jannaway, and edited in 1978 by Gilbert V. Growcott, brother Jannaway states, “T[rue]: 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.” (The Berean, 1978, p. 349; originally published in The Christadelphian, 1892). Brother Growcott adds in a preface to the article that the article is "A Defense of the Historic Christadelphian Position" and "a valuable testimony" to "the established Christadelphian position on fellowship up to that time” (1892). Is it the Berean position that, so far as doctrine is concerned, “Only errors which involve those 'essentials' or 'first principles' should bar our fellowship”?
[ JP: Yes, but again with the qualifications I made in answer to your questions, 1, 2, and 3.]

Brother F. G. Jannaway, in the original 1892 publication of the article referenced above wrote, “Only errors which multiply those ‘essentials’ or ‘first principles’ should bar our fellowship.” In 1978 brother Growcott, edited the sentence quoted in this question to say “Only errors which involve those 'essentials' or 'first principles' should bar our fellowship.” As noted in the previous question, brother Growcott said the article was “A Defense of the Historic Christadelphian Position”, and “a valuable testimony” to “the established Christadelphian position on fellowship up to that time”. If the original article was in fact what brother Growcott claimed, do the Bereans today accept Frank Jannaway’s statement that “errors which multiply”, that is, to add, “first principles” “bar our fellowship”?
[ SG: Here the Bereans run into a problem as will be seen later in the debate. Nothing special hinges on the Berean answer. But it a witness against them as will be seen
JP: I see no objection to either word... The way you use "multiply" in your question is the modern use, but it suggests that bro. Jannaway is arguing that only if one wishes to add a false clause to the Statement of Faith, do we have a matter requiring us to bar fellowship... "Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off." --Hezekiah
SG: I checked the Oxford English Dictionary to make sure I used "multiply" in the 1923 sense (which happens to be consistent with "modern usage"). Further, I quoted it in context, "Only errors which multiply...". You have gone off on a tangent which is unnecessary. That "errors" are involved plainly indicates a lack of "one mind". And, uhh, it was Ahab who said the words you take for your own, not Hezekiah.
JP: Do you really, honestly believe you can quibble about the proper usage of a word, to argue against the man's demonstrated life's work?... Are you now trying to do the same thing with bro. Jannaway, and claim that he didn't really come out from Central over the Constabulary issue, and Clean Flesh?
SG: 1) Oddly, you are the one quibbling about the word and yet you are not saying it means anything different from what I have said. You say "enlarge", "increase", "added" or "extend". I used the word "add". All the words have the same basic meaning which is not disputed. 2) The tangent is, specifically, that you wrote, "but it suggests that bro. Jannaway is arguing that only if one wishes to add a false clause to the Statement of Faith, do we have a matter requiring us to bar fellowship". That is your suggestion, your assumption and therefore you are fighting your own paper tiger. 3) Your answer did nothing more than provide context of the quote and then you say you have set forth "the man's demonstrated life's work"? Are you exaggerating again? 4) As to FGJ "com[ing] out from Central", again, you do not know your history very well for "Central" did not exist in 1923. It would not be called (and then only by a few) the Central Fellowship until 1935, 11 to 12 years after FGJ withdrew from the Temperance Hall ecclesia. Ecclesias were not unionized in 1923 as you portray, another modern Berean assumption, another modern Berean mistake, and fatal to your position.]

Brother G.V. Growcott wrote, “We have judged to the extent of standing aside from those who do not fully accept and apply what we believe to be the first principles of fellowship. To this extent we have judged and must judge. We believe these ‘brethren’ are in error in the position of fellowship they take, and we believe faithfulness calls for a standing aside and a testifying against their error (admonition), and an endeavor to persuade them to forsake the error.” (The Berean, 1961, p. 351; 1982, p. 173). Brother G.V. Growcott argues that the Bereans stand aside from others because “of the first principles of fellowship”. Is the doctrine of fellowship therefore a “First Principle”?

[ SG: this is a problematic answer for the Bereans but they cannot deny it because this is the very excuse they use, as shown in the quote above, to deny fellowship with Christadelphians who do not endorse the extreme to which they take the doctrine of fellowship
JP: Yes, the doctrine of fellowship is a first principle. ]

Summary: So far as doctrine is concerned, it is clear that "the measure and standard" of fellowship is the 'things concerning the Kingdom of God' and 'those things that concern our Lord Jesus Christ,' in their scriptural amplitude. These are termed "the whole Truth", the Gospel, and the "First Principles". JP in answering attempts, right up front, to interject "our Statement of Faith with the Doctrines to be Rejected and the Commandments of Christ, enforced in fellowship" into quotes that, in some cases, do not mention any of those elements. No dictionary would define the phrase 'scriptural amplitude' to mean "our Statement of Faith with the Doctrines to be Rejected and the Commandments of Christ, enforced in fellowship".

Scriptural: Of or pertaining to or contained in or in accordance with the Bible
amplitude: extent, largeness, breadth

Some of the questions are dealing with a general principle while bro. JP tries to force upon each question a single example of the principles put into practical terms. That single example is the BASF/DTBR and CoC which just happens to be the only thing Bereans recognize as part of their basis of fellowship. I particularly find the addition of the phrase 'enforced in fellowship' noteworthy. The question is, what is the "measure and standard" of fellowship. Jim defines the phrase in a way that includes the very principle of the thing we are trying to define! JP, therefore, engages in a circular argument. And by pushing this definition into every quote JP attempts to redefine what the various quotes originally stated. These reinterpretations serve a Berean attempting to defend Bereanism, but it does not serve the Truth or documented history as we shall see in further questioning.

JP has now admitted (in #3) that Berean practices are different from the pioneer practices. The pioneer brethren did not require a Common Statement of Faith to be accepted in fellowship. Nor were early Christadelphian ecclesias unionized. But these are just the first faults in a system which is a corruption of apostolic and genuine Christadelphian fellowship practices.

Next: The Ecclesia and The Body of Christ vs. The Berean Society

Return to Introduction

Last Update: October 10, 2007