Fellowship Debate Material - Pioneer Christadelphian vs. Berean Practices

The Fellowship Debate Material

Pioneer Christadelphian vs. Berean Practices

Anyone who has read the debate questions up to this point will know that the Berean "Basis of Fellowship" is a far cry from what bre. John Thomas and Robert Roberts established. But we can do further damage to the already falsified claim that "The Berean Christadelphians have steadfastly refused to alter their fellowship position from that established by bre. Thomas and Roberts" by asking some further questions.

Since the only doctrinal difference between some Berean Christadelphians and some non-Berean Christadelphians is the extent to which Berean brethren have taken the doctrine of fellowship, would it be fair to say that a first principle separates them?
[ Yes. The Berean MUST maintain this claim or he will have admitted that they have made non-first principle doctrines a matter of fellowship and this would be an admission of serious doctrinal corruption in Berean practice ]

"The Berean Christadelphians, over our history, have been the one Christadelphian fellowship which has steadfastly refused to alter our fellowship position from that established by bre. Thomas and Roberts." Jim P. claims that, “This was a statement made by bro. G. V. Growcott in issuing the Berean Restatement.“ Do the Bereans maintain that the Berean Fellowship “has steadfastly refused to alter” their “fellowship position from that established by bre. Thomas and Roberts”?
[ Yes ]

Is it possible for a man to endorse, in word, the published Berean basis of fellowship, while at the same time, unbeknownst to his brethren, walk contrary to apostolic commanded behavior?

[ Yes : In such a case, is that man in fellowship with the Father and His Son?

> No

In such a case, is that man in fellowship with those he breaks bread with?

> ? [ the Berean should answer no per 1 John 1:7 but seeing the problem he faces he may answer Yes ]

So you admit then that a man may break bread but not be in fellowship with either his brethren or the Father and His Son?
[ Jim cannot argue that they are really in fellowship but that the sins of this person are not imputed to others in the act of fellowship. Either they are in fellowship and all that that word means, or they are not. According to Jim they are because they broke bread together. According to 1 John 1:7 they are not in fellowship. ]

Take the case of a man who endorses, in word, the published Berean basis of fellowship, but walks in ways contrary to the Gospel, and his local ecclesia is fully aware of his misconduct but they choose to ignore it. Is his local ecclesia in fellowship with him?

[ > Yes, because they are aware of his misconduct

I agree. Now, are they in fellowship with the Father and His Son?

> No

So in this particular case (fellowship with the Father and His Son), breaking of bread is not necessarily equivalent to fellowship? -- Again, no, not according to 1 John 1:7

]

An ecclesia, in the same Fellowship, exists 30 miles away from the brother who is walking in sin. They are currently unaware of this brother’s conduct. Are they in fellowship with either the disobedient brother or his ecclesia?

[ ‘No’, because God does not hold us responsible when we are unaware of such misconduct ]

So you admit it is possible for two ecclesias to be in the same society but not to be in fellowship with one another?

[ This line of questioning shows that the Society or Union neither creates or prevents fellowship amongst member ecclesias. Fellowship is about beliefs, obedience, and personal responsibility. But Bereans have substituted the Society for Scriptural fellowship as do other schismatic fellowships. It is really more about personal convenience and getting away from undesirable brethren, than it is about really upholding Christadelphian fellowship practices. The "upholding Christadelphian fellowship practices" is the disguise. Having more zeal than wisdom or knowledge, perhaps the avoiding of undesirables, running away from local problems, and other personal interests are the real issues at the core of what Bereanism has always been about ]

Were Christadelphian ecclesias, from the time of the formation of the first Christadelphian ecclesias, free to draft, adapt, and adopt their own ecclesial Statement of Faith which was their basis of fellowship?

[ Yes ]

Are Berean ecclesias now free to draft, adapt, and adopt their own ecclesial Statement of Faith which serves as their basis of fellowship?

[ No ]

So you are admitting that Berean practice is NOT pioneer practice?
[ No ]

Did brother John Thomas, at any time, suggest that Christadelphian ecclesias adopt a common Statement of Faith?

[ Never ]

Did ecclesias in the days of John Thomas or Robert Roberts, have any of the following: a Common Statement of Faith, a common Doctrines to be Rejected, a Common Commandments of Christ, a Common Constitution, or a commonly held Restatement?
[ No ]

So you are admitting that Berean practice is NOT pioneer practice?
[ No ]

Are you aware of any statement by brother John Thomas, at any time in his life, which agrees with this one: “We do believe we are in fellowship with all in our community who share the emblems” (JP) ?
[ No ]

"Would you have any fellowship with those who believe or teach these things? Answer: 'My fellowship is with the apostles; they had many brethren who were bewitched and disgraced the truth.'" (Answer by John Thomas, The Christadelphian, 1870, 155). Does the Berean community have "many brethren who are bewitched and disgrace the truth"?
[ No, we are The One True Body: "We do believe we are in fellowship with all in our community who share the emblems" (JP).]

"All whom the apostles fellowshipped, believed it; and all in the apostolic ecclesias who believed it not—and there were such—had not fellowship with the apostles" (John Thomas, The Christadelphian, 1870, 16) Note: these quotes are just prior to bro. Thomas' death. Is this consistent with Berean beliefs?
[ No ]

"Declare what you as a body believe to be the apostles’ doctrines. Invite fellowship upon that basis alone. If upon that declaration, any take the bread and wine, not being offered by you, they do so upon their own responsibility, not on yours. If they help themselves to the elements, they endorse your declaration of doctrine, and eat condemnation to themselves. For myself, I am not in fellowship with the dogma that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh" (John Thomas, The Christadelphian, 1870, p. 16). Does Berean practice agree with this statement, written only a year or two before brother Thomas' death?
[ No! ]

So you are admitting that Berean practice is NOT pioneer practice?
[ No ]

Did brother Roberts believe he was in fellowship with everyone who partook of the emblems?
[ No, but Bereans would probably affirm yes ]

Are you aware of any statement by brother Robert Roberts, at any time in his life, which agrees with this one: “We do believe we are in fellowship with all in our community who share the emblems”
[ No ]

Does this statement from brother Roberts indicate he believed he was in fellowship with all who partook of the emblems? “John opens before us considerations powerful to strengthen us in our determination to adhere to Christ in the midst of all the difficulties. “That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his son Jesus Christ, and these things write we unto you that your joy may be full.” The fellowship here referred to is a joyful thing—not possible of being seen in all its significance till the veil is removed that meanwhile separates from the Father’s presence. It is a very different thing from the “fellowship” of ecclesial phrase, which is often a sheer endurance and great trial of affliction—as intended for the discipline of the true children. True fellowship is a state of being a fellow of, a state of being in close companionship and congenial intimacy with another. It amounts almost to identity. Association is a pure satisfaction bordering on ecstacy; separation a cause of the reverse experience. The grounds of it lie in identity of view, taste, feeling, principle, and aim. It is because there is little of this identity, that there is little of pure fellowship in the present evil state. There may be any amount of association without true fellowship, though true fellowship craves association. There may be nominal fellowship that is sincere enough without being real. The obligations of duty may lead to it without the heart tasting the sweets of it, for lack of the mutuality of the conditions out of which it springs. This is speaking of the fellowships of probation, but this is all preliminary. The true fellowship which the apostles have been sent to create, is that fellowship with the Father and with his son Jesus Christ, which will be triumphantly established in a multitude upon the earth at last on the basis of incorruptibility of nature.” (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian 1895, p. 54)
[ No ]

So you are admitting that Berean practice is NOT pioneer practice?
[ No ]

Did brother Roberts, at any time, suggest that Christadelphian ecclesias adopt a common Statement of Faith?

[ Never ]

In The Christadelphian, 1881, p. 572 bro. Roberts write, "'Justice.'—Your proposal for the simultaneous adoption of a common statement of faith by all the ecclesias is made with the best of objects; but it could not accomplish the end you seek. It is not possible in the present state of things to bring all to harmony and stop the mouths of talkers. If the Apostles did not succeed in this, none else need hope to do so. We can but do our best and let things take their course." Do the Bereans endorse this judgment of bro. Robert Roberts?
[ No ]

Is it right for Bereans to demand of ecclesias what brethren Thomas and Roberts did not?
[ Yes, because we are The One True Body. We have "gone on unto perfection" (A real Berean claim made on Bob Widding's forum) ]

So you are admitting that Berean practice is NOT pioneer practice?
[ No ]

Did the North London Islington ecclesia adopt a new Statement of Faith in 1887?

[ Yes ]

Was the Statement of Faith the North London Islington ecclesia adopted the same SOF that was in use by the Birmingham Christadelphian Ecclesia?

[ No ]

So far as the wording between the 1887 North London Islington ecclesia SOF and the Birmingham SOF is concerned, is the wording of the clauses similar or are the two statements of faith grammatically very different?

[ Very different ]

Was brother Roberts “in fellowship” with the North London Islington ecclesia in 1887?

[ Yes ]

Did bro. Roberts continue to welcome and print ecclesial Intelligence in the pages of The Christadelphian for the North London Islington ecclesia?

[ Yes ]

Why are Berean demands diametrically opposed to bro. Roberts’ judgment and his understanding of “the doctrine of fellowship”?
[ We Bereans are the one fellowship that has steadfastly refused to alter our fellowship position from that established by bre. Thomas and Roberts. ]

“Our friends are not reasonable with us. We judge for ourselves alone in all matters of faith and practice. We impose our judgment on no one.” (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1887, p. 471). Does not the society of Berean ecclesias impose its judgment on all those brethren who, though outside the Berean society, desire to be in fellowship with Berean brethren?
[ No, we judge for ourselves what is right. We Bereans are the one fellowship that has steadfastly refused to alter our fellowship position from that established by bre. Thomas and Roberts. ]

“Zeal for purity of fellowship is very laudable; but in the abstract, it is a vague cry, and must be very carefully handled. In the name of it, you may do, and undoubtedly are doing, great wrong.” (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1898)

[ No, not we Bereans. We are holding the purity of the truth and practice as established by our pioneer brethren ]

“Nottingham.—Brother Burton reports that at a special meeting of the ecclesia, held Aug. 2nd, the following resolution was unanimously passed:—“We the immersed believers of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, meeting in the Mechanics’ Lecture Hall, Nottingham, recognising the scripturalness of the statement of the one faith, recently issued by the London ecclesia, and the desirability of having such a defined statement of our faith, hereby adopt the same as our basis of fellowship.” (The Christadelphian, 1874, p. 436). Did the Nottingham ecclesia adopt the Birmingham Statement of Faith as its basis of fellowship, or the SOF from the London ecclesia?
[ The SOF from the London ecclesia]

Did brother Roberts, inspite of their choice of which SOF to use, continue to print their Ecclesial Intelligence in the pages of The Christadelphian?
[ Yes ]

Did brother Roberts recognize them as "in fellowship" despite the differing Statements of Faith?
[ Yes ]

Do Berean practices agree with those of brother Roberts?
[ No ]

So you are admitting that Berean practice is NOT pioneer practice?
[ No ]

Doon.—“An Ecclesia was organised here in 1863, when Dr. Thomas visited us, and we have continued to hold forth the truth to those around us since that time. We have had our difficulties respecting doctrines; but I am happy to say that we are all in harmony now. We have a statement of faith which forms the basis of our fellowship. It is in a condensed form for the purpose of registration as there is no law here that recognises Christadelphians as a body. We therefore registered our faith and gave a lease of our meeting house to those holding that faith for 99 years I enclose copy of statement. We also believe in a wholly inspired Bible which is a question that had not arisen when the lease was given. We hold our meetings every Sunday at 11 a.m., Doon and Blair alternately. They are two small villages two miles apart. We have helped 14 to put on the saving name this current year—10 of whom are constant attendants at the Lord’s table, and two reside in Galt, sisters Robb and Wilkins, and two in Stratford, sisters Trow and Adams. I have been a reader of your writings for 25 years and am happy to say I have always found them in accord with the Scriptures. I have also noted your course of action through the many trials you have had to pass through for the truth’s sake, and I feel assured that you have done your duty as a faithful servant of Christ.” (The Christadelphian, 1888, p. 60-61) Ecclesial Intelligence from Doon started appearing in The Christadelphian in February 1885. Same questions.
[ ]

Brother Thomas applied the apocalyptic letters to a continuous historic interpretation. Thus the present age ecclesia is described as 'blind' and 'naked'. If you accept brother Thomas' understanding of the apocalypse then, logically, you must accept that the Bereans are 'blind' and 'naked'. Is this the state of the Berean Fellowship?

[ Personal note: If you admit that the Bereans are in such as state, then your fellowship sounds like Central and I see no point on which you can advocate for brethren to leave Central and join you in a position which not only sounds like Central but, superadded to that, misunderstands fellowship. If you deny the applicability to the Bereans then you, logically, admit that your practice of fellowship must be a synthetic practice, one neither instituted by the Spirit, or by the pioneers. ]
In Eureka brother Thomas, speaking of the Laodicean age wrote, "But among the Laodiceans the Antipas are not found. Their existence is a supposition, as, 'If any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.' The Satan was triumphant there, and the faithful witnesses reduced to such an insignificant minority as to be noticeable in the prophecy only as an hypothesis. They were 'a contemptible few' not submerged in 'the depths of the Satan as they speak;' but not enough of them to save the ecclesia from being spued out of the Spirit’s mouth." Is this the state of the Berean Fellowship?
[ Personal note: If you admit that the Bereans are in such as state, then your fellowship sounds like Central and I see no point on which you can advocate for brethren to leave Central and join you in a position which not only sounds like Central but, superadded to that, misunderstands fellowship. If you deny the applicability to the Bereans then you, logically, admit that your practice of fellowship must be a synthetic practice, one neither instituted by the Spirit, or by the pioneers.']

"I entirely agree with you in your graphic description of the barrenness of Christadelphia... The Christadelphian Body in the days of the apostles abounded with professors whose hearts were but little attuned to the faith and hope they professed. Peter styles them washed hogs; and Paul, as little complimentary of them as he, terms them, 'liars, evil beasts, and slow bellies.' These were creatures who had 'crept in unawares,' and 'spoke evil of those things which they understood not;' clouds they were without water, carried about of winds of doctrine, and sporting themselves with their own deceivings, by which they beguiled unstable souls, and brought 'the way of truth' into disrepute." (John Thomas writing to Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1866, p. 204). Is this the state of the Berean Fellowship?
[ Personal note: If you admit that the Bereans are in such as state, then your fellowship sounds like Central and I see no point on which you can advocate for brethren to leave Central and join you in a position which not only sounds like Central but, superadded to that, misunderstands fellowship. If you deny the applicability to the Bereans then you, logically, admit that your practice of fellowship must be a synthetic practice, one neither instituted by the Spirit, or by the pioneers.']

"In our generation, as in that of the apostles, the ecclesia, or general assembly of the many, who are called, is composed of these heterogeneous materials. It has been thus in all generations before and since Satan, in the days of Job, mingled with the Sons of the Deity, when they presented themselves in the Divine presence (Job 1:6). The satanic element has ever been among them with its 'depths as they speak' (ch. 2:24), corrupting and perverting the weak. In the wisdom of the Deity, Satan has been permitted to practice, and to deceive the hearts of the simple, who are 'ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth' (2 Tim. 3:7), without judicial interference" (Eureka, 5 p. 81). Is the satanic element found amongst the Berean Fellowship?
[ Personal note: If you admit that the Bereans are in such as state, then your fellowship sounds like Central and I see no point on which you can advocate for brethren to leave Central and join you in a position which not only sounds like Central but, superadded to that, misunderstands fellowship. If you deny the applicability to the Bereans then you, logically, admit that your practice of fellowship must be a synthetic practice, one neither instituted by the Spirit, or by the pioneers.']

Next: Berean Inconsistencies — I will show thee my faith by my works

Return to Introduction

Last Update: September 22, 2007