JimmyWasheckCorr - page 1 of 6

Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 7:18 AM

To: kittbrown@zianet.com; waynet7@juno.com; burnsrusa@netscape.net;

robmil42@hotmail.com; sammi1@citlink.net; ecclesia@jayeffpartners.ca; SSh9988744@aol.com;

vhusted@jam.rr.com; gcnicholson@attglobal.net; SmommaS@aol.com;

mjasionowski@hotmail.com; mac.briley@worldnet.att.net; pellucidar@juno.com; osp@netinc.ca;

pkpuffin@hotmail.com; vreed@flash.net; muddmdl@aol.com; gpl@acay.com.au;

gerlsuzesankey@yahoo.com; bobdebhend@aol.com; asankey@matrixbancorp.com;

ajgorman@email.msn.com; aaronthomas2@juno.com; hbs1114@juno.com; jimdolly@ev1.net;

Fein9211@msn.com; charliebeen@alltel.net; anitasue65@juno.com; rseureka@aol.com;

pwood@moment.net

Cc: steve@genusa.com

Subject: Fellowshipping "JJ Andrew's 1887 Statement of Faith"

Brethren,

I confess that I do not know all the recipients cc'd in Stephen Genusa's 9-9-02 e-mail

to Bro Vandergriff , but I want to get the following information out to the Unamended

household as well as to interested parties. In regard to the question posed..."Are you

willing to fellowship, if it were possible, on the basis of JJ Andrew's 1887 Statement of

Faith.", ( p.12, #5, The Rules and Statement....The North London Ecclesia....Jan., 1887),

the following documentation from Bro Andrew adds the necessary clarity with which to

assess the issue. An attempt has been made to present this SOF article #5 on

resurrectional responsibility as representing a unified position within that ecclesia, and, as

the personal belief of Bro Andrew at that time. Bro Andrew clarifies the circumstances

and the intent of article #5 in the pages of The Sanctuary- Keeper. In his article titled The

Judgement Controversy in London, (Vol 1, July, 1894, pgs. 27 through 31) Bro Andrew

reviews the heightened controversy of the previous years and also comments on article

#5:

The ecclesial basis of fellowship in the course of the present discussion has, for

obvious purposes, been used in a way which was never intended. When originally drawn

up the question had not been thoroughly sifted. The words so often quoted, "Resurrection

affects those only who are responsible to God by a knowledge of His revealed Will," were

inserted in consequence of not being able to affirm that none out of Christ would be

raised to judgment; but they did not represent a dogmatic attitude. If the subject had

been viewed as clearly demonstrated, it would have been expressed in more explicit

language and also in a negative form. At the time the basis was adopted, and ever since,

there have been two minds in London on the question, but as it was treated as an open

one no difficulty has previously arisen. Bro. Owler has always held his present belief,

and he has made no secret of it either in London or Birmingham. Other brethren in

London (North and South) have been of the same mind for years, some from their

immersion. Such have not considered that they were out of harmony with the ecclesial

basis, because they have understood the word "knowledge" in its comprehensive

Scriptural sense, as used in II. Peter ii. 20, to describe those who have been "washed"

from their sins (22).