1. Christadelphian History and the Biblical Fellowship
2. Excerpts from The Christadelphian on the subject of Fellowship
3. John Thomas on Fellowship: His matured convictions (1861-1870)
1.
Christadelphian History
and The Biblical Fellowship
The Foundation
At the outset we wish to mention that the following treatise is not intended to be an exhaustive study upon Christadelphian history and Biblical fellowship. Lord willing, our desire is to provide an overview of both subjects so that we might gain a greater appreciation for the Scriptural position. Christadelphian History
and The Biblical Fellowship
The Foundation
When contemplating the subject of Biblical fellowship our minds are first directed to Yahshua Anointed. The Scriptures reveal our Lord to be The Foundation – The Chief Cornerstone – upon which is built a Spiritual House: The Congregation or Ecclesia of the Deity. The Apostle Paul writes:
"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints and with the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone..." (Eph. 2:19-22; cf. Heb. 3:6).
This is a House with rules. All interpersonal relationships among the occupants are governed generally by 1 John 1:3-7, and specifically by many verses, which fall under its umbrella. The Apostle John writes:
“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...If we walk in The Light as Deity is in The Light, we have fellowship one with another…”
Light is a Biblical metaphor for Truth. Accordingly, as John declares, walking together in the Light of Yahweh's Truth is the sole basis of The Fellowship of the Brethren and Sisters of Yahshua Anointed (Isa. 8:20; Psa. 119:105; Prov. 6:23; Jn. 1:4).
A Summary of Ecclesial History
Throughout the centuries many individuals have both entered and exited The Fellowship – a community of believers that has been known by several names: The Way, The Sect Everywhere Spoken Against, Christians, The Brethren of Christ, et al. Notwithstanding these various appellations, all have been of the Ecclesia of Yahweh, at least initially. Over the passage of many centuries, and no doubt for a host of diverse reasons, so many individuals exited The Fellowship that it had all but disappeared from off the spiritual landscape. Then, in 1847, it was wholly re-established. At that time, The Fellowship was also known by several names: Thomasites, Nazarenes, The Royal Association of Believers, and ultimately, The Christadelphians, taken from Colossians, chapter one.
During the course of some 160 years, The Fellowship, known as Christadelphians, would also witness many both entering and exiting. A continued violation of the 1 John 1:3-7 “House Rules” would cause some to exit voluntarily, and others via disfellowship.
A failure to walk in The Light, and consequently, fellowship being breached, The Dowieites would exit in the 1860s; The Renunciationists, in the 1870s; The Partial Inspirationists, in the 1880s. This latter group would become known as The Suffolk Street Fellowship. Then, in the 1890s, The Anti-Responsibility Group would follow suit. They would become known as Advocates or Unamended.
In those days there was a capable leader in brother Robert Roberts who properly and Scripturally reacted to the threat posed by men who would corrupt the Truth. During these tumultuous times Ecclesias found themselves in the midst of disfellowshipping others, at least partially as a result of brother Roberts' use of The Christadelphian magazine to encourage support for the preservation of Yahweh's Truth in the Ecclesias. All of this history is well documented. For example, during the Partial Inspiration crisis, he wrote:
"We propose to rally to the right doctrine, and then to step aside from all who refuse to do this, or (which is the same thing) who refuse to repudiate the error and those who teach it. The community as a community has become corrupt. We propose to cease our connection with it on this account. We will go out in the name of allegiance to the Bible as God's wholly-inspired and infallible word. This is a Scriptural line of action. To 'come out from among them' is a matter of command when a community, as such, has become hopelessly corrupt. We have done it before when we came out of the sects which claim to be Christ's people. It is the only course that can extricate us from the false position in which we have been placed by the reception of a false and destructive doctrine by so many in our midst..." (Roberts, 1885).
In 1898, with the falling asleep of brother Roberts, contending for The Faith would become lax. By 1923, Christadelphians known as The Birmingham (Temperance Hall) Fellowship exited The Fellowship. Through harboring the erroneous doctrines of clean flesh, constabulary service, military service, suing at law, voting and oath-taking, and allowing such to establish a foothold, they had, in effect, become a new group based upon different beliefs and standards. (In 1932, they became known as The Central Fellowship. For the history of this period, see The Christadelphians Then and Now: A Plea for the Birmingham Statement of Faith, by Frank G. Jannaway, 1927, pp 23-27; and The Christadelphian, 1932, p. 554.)
In 1923, those remaining in The Fellowship were brethren and sisters comprising over 100 Ecclesias in the British Commonwealth and the Americas who would become known as The Berean Christadelphians. These held to the original Christadelphian doctrines.
Since that time others would exit The Fellowship as well. In 1953, many would join Central. At least two splinter groups off the Bereans still exist.
The Fellowship Today
All of the above history is highly interesting, but the vital question is: Where are we today? Yesterday is gone. It cannot be changed. Let us, therefore, look at the Berean Christadelphians at the present time. Are the Bereans still in The Fellowship? Only the Lord knows for certain. On our part, both careful research and personal contact has revealed that on the whole, as a fellowship, Berean brethren are more oriented toward original Christadelphian beliefs than are the other respective groups on the whole, as a fellowship: Even on their worst day, Bereans appear to be better off doctrinally than virtually anything else that we have been able to find, on its best day.
Are the Bereans morally perfect? No, indeed (1 Jn. 1:8-10). Worldliness has crept into both the Ecclesia and the lives of all men and women since the Fall of Adam. It is a daily struggle to overcome the sin that so easily besets us. The brethren and sisters of the Berean Ecclesias seem to manifest an unusually keen realization of the principle of Galatians 6:1 in helping one another to overcome sin. This is refreshing.
Do the Bereans have doctrinal problems? On occasion this occurs. However, from personal knowledge we can declare that these issues are dealt with in a Scriptural manner. After all has been said and done, there is closure either one way or the other. Every effort is made to recover our erring brother. If there is repentance, then the Ecclesias rejoice over a wayward brother restored to good standing. If not, then the Biblical principle of disfellowship remains in place. Error will not be allowed a platform whereby the Christ-Body can become infected with spiritually destructive disease (2 Tim. 2:17).
Berean Christadelphians still hold to The Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith and The Berean Restatement, both of which enumerate the beliefs of the early Christadelphians. Moreover, the Bereans are not continuously plagued by individuals who hold unscriptural notions that trouble especially the Central and Advocate groups. These groups are chronically afflicted by errorists from within their own respective fellowships who, at sundry places and diverse times, hold false beliefs of which the following is only a partial list:
1. Preterist view of the Apocalypse.
2. Futurist view of the Apocalypse.
3. Clean-Flesh, i.e., no sin in the flesh.
4. Christ not offering for himself.
5. Only covenant-makers will be raised and judged. (Limited to Advocate.)
6. Evolution.
7. Genesis creation account not literal.
8. Open door fellowship.
9. Participation in police or military service.
10. Participation in politics or voting.
11. In the Kingdom now.
12. Partial inspiration of the Scriptures.
13. Suing brethren at law.
14. Nebuchadnezzar's Image being Arab.
15. No Papacy in prophecy.
16. Russia not the invader of Ezekiel 38-39.
17. Salvation at baptism.
18. Saved by faith: works not necessary.
19. No Millennial Temple.
20. No Post-Millennial Rebellion and Resurrection.
21. Paid ministry and seminarians.
22. Lax (or no) pre-baptismal confession of faith.
23. Present possession of the Holy Spirit.
24. Ecumenism.
It takes effort on the part of all Berean Ecclesias to maintain a decent level of freedom from false doctrine. This is not a big policing project. All Ecclesias have endeavored to be “of one mind” and have kept true principles together (Jn. 17:11). Such is not being "holier than thou.” It is, we hope, an honest effort to manifest obedience to the Lord. Notwithstanding, we are not immune from attack by errorists. We must be ever on our guard: “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” (1 Jn. 4:1; 1 Cor. 10:12).
May we be always thankful to the Lord for His many blessings, one of which is the Ecclesial peace that ensues from endeavoring to preserve sound doctrine (Jas. 3:17).
Those Who Have Exited The Fellowship
Were those individuals or groups who exited The Fellowship still in the way of life? Only the Deity knows for certain how much divergence from sound doctrine He will tolerate and still consider a person to be in the way of life, or an Ecclesia, a viable Lightstand. There would certainly be degrees of responsibility and condemnation – teachers bearing the greater burden (Jas. 3:1). However, it is not our prerogative to make such judgments. Faithful brethren and sisters are duty-bound by numerous principles such as 1 John 1:5-7 and Ephesians 5:11 to be circumspect in truth and fellowship. Although the Deity might consider a doctrinally unsteady brother to be in the way, we cannot afford to ignore the Biblical principles which both create and dissolve fellowship: walking in the Light as Deity is in the Light that begets fellowship, and walking in Darkness that severs fellowship. We would be disobedient to the Lord by extending fellowship to an erring brother (or brethren) indefinitely without Biblical closure on the issue.Contenders in Other Groups
There are brethren and sisters who, in various ways, contend for the Truth within their respective Christadelphian groups. A few of these individuals are known to us. Some of these groups are so rife with apostasy that one wonders how any spiritually sane person can stand it. Yet certain Contenders remain, trying to make a positive difference. In this regard, we remember Lot. His righteous soul was vexed daily as he witnessed the wickedness in his midst. We also remember Noah, the Preacher of Righteousness. No doubt he did not view with favor the evil surrounding him. We remember the Prophets as well, and empathize with those in similar circumstances. There is Biblical precedent for brethren to remain in association with an Ecclesia (or Ecclesias) while serious problems are being addressed. Paul in Corinth comes to mind as well as the Ecclesias of Asia Minor. When we think back to our own days in the association of an unsound group, we can recall the rationale for remaining in the midst of terrible error. We understood the longstanding views of respected brethren and generally agreed with them as to their reasoning behind not abdicating responsibilities. “Nothing would make the wolves happier than for us to leave,” was a common rejoinder among them. Was the approach promulgated by these brethren a Scriptural one? Yes, it was, but only to a point. Then it became quite wrong, as we shall see.
A Time to Stay and a Time to Leave
After years of contending, and facing no solution to the false doctrine besetting the unsound group, we left. Why? Because there must eventually be Biblical closure to error troubling the Congregations. In the unsound group there never was closure. Problems only waxed gross. Like a cancer, it continued to eat away at the heart of the Ecclesias, all efforts at contending notwithstanding. As with Lot, so it was with us. There was a time to stay. There was a time to leave. At the urging of the Elohim, Lot wisely chose to leave prior to the judgment upon the city. We do not necessarily need an appearing angel to tell us when to leave. The Word can direct us.
And there is Noah, the Preacher of Righteousness. There was a time for preaching, and a time for building. Then it was time to leave. We need not remind ourselves of the prophetical parallel between Noah’s day and our own.
What of the Prophets? During the time of the Old Covenant, they proclaimed the warnings of the Deity. They were commanded to remain continuously in the midst of a rebellious and apostate Nation, whether their words were heeded or not. Is it the same for us? Not necessarily.
Under the New Covenant we have been given commands as well, one of which is to work within the Ecclesia to solve problems. However, in so doing, we cannot fellowship error (or those who fellowship error) indefinitely. There must ultimately be Scriptural closure. To proceed otherwise would put us at odds with The Word. The following summary of Biblical principles reveals the various circumstances, both doctrinal and moral, under which fellowship cannot continue:
1. Withdraw thyself from such as teach or consent not to the doctrine which is according to godliness (1 Tim. 6:3-5; cf. Tit. 1:1).
2. Reject a heretic after the first and second admonition (Tit. 3:10).
3. Withdraw yourselves from disorderly brethren (2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15).
4. Avoid them that cause division and offenses contrary to the doctrine (Rom. 16:17).
5. Receive them not into your house who bring not this doctrine (2 Jn. 7-11).
6. Put away from among yourselves that wicked person; do not eat with such an one (1 Cor. 5:11-13).
7. Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness (Eph 5:11).
8. Unrepentant errorists are to be disfellowshipped (Rev. 2:14-15).
9. Offenders who will not hear the Ecclesia are to be as a heathen and publican (Matt. 18:17).
10. Those who walk in darkness have absolutely no basis for fellowship with the Christ-Body (1 Jn. 1:5-7)
The Contender must choose the time when his work in an unsound Ecclesia(s) is over. No one can make this choice for him. It is between he and the Almighty through Yahshua Anointed and guided by an intelligent understanding of the Word in tandem with prayer. However, when the Contender’s hope of salvation is put at risk by a continued association with Darkness, it is time for him to leave. He must discern, Scripturally, at which point the Darkness has become so great that his further association therein could make both he and his family castaways.
Once departed from an unsound fellowship, the Contender can still reach out to those in the other groups. This only requires both the desire and effort through word, pen and example to “save others with fear, pulling them out of the fire” (Jude 23).
A Word to Those in Other Groups
We have shared with you some of the rationale – both historical and Biblical – as to why we believe the Berean Christadelphians to be the Original Christadelphian Biblical Fellowship. If you wish to learn more about us, you are invited to contact the Berean brethren: rkw@aristotle.netBob Widding
2.
Excerpts from The Christadelphian
on the subject of Fellowship
Robert Roberts' call for separation from Partial Inspirationists:
"We propose to rally to the right doctrine, and then to step aside from all who refuse to do this, or (which is the same thing) who refuse to repudiate the error and those who teach it. The community as a community has become corrupt. We propose to cease our connection with it on this account. We will go out in the name of allegiance to the Bible as God's wholly-inspired and infallible word. This is a Scriptural line of action. To 'come out from among them' is a matter of command when a community, as such, has become hopelessly corrupt. We have done it before when we came out of the sects which claim to be Christ's people. It is the only course that can extricate us from the false position in which we have been placed by the reception of a false and destructive doctrine by so many in our midst...
"I cannot agree with those who say we should only separate from those who teach error, and not from those who believe it (which I take it is practically the same thing as 'refusing to repudiate'). The basis of all fellowship is identity of belief – not identity of teaching – though the latter would follow from the former. Some object to the flower, but not to the root. Let us take out the root of our present distress, and then the distress will end." (1885, pp 299-310).
"Your ecclesia deciding to fellowship partial inspiration, you could not do otherwise than step aside as you have done" (1885).
"The time for withdrawal is when men drift into unscriptural attitudes of faith or practice. These we note and separate ourselves from, without reference to the question of whether the offenders can be saved, which we cannot decide. And the withdrawal is not putting them out but going out ourselves, as the term implies. We simply go away, saying we cannot be responsible" (April 1891).
In the above quotes, brother Roberts indicates that he would endorse leaving a community of Christadelphians if false doctrine established a foothold therein. By 1923 such had taken place in the Birmingham (Temperance Hall) Fellowship. By harboring erroneous doctrines, and allowing these to establish a foothold, this Fellowship (later known as Central), effectively became a new group based upon different beliefs and standards. And so, brethren and sisters the world over left their company, and, we would suggest, the Biblical Fellowship went with them. – B. W.
"The blame of division on inspiration rests with those who would leave it an open question" (1894).
"I cannot agree with those who say we should only separate from those who teach error, and not from those who believe it (which I take it is practically the same thing as 'refusing to repudiate'). The basis of all fellowship is identity of belief – not identity of teaching – though the latter would follow from the former. Some object to the flower, but not to the root. Let us take out the root of our present distress, and then the distress will end." (1885, pp 299-310).
"Your ecclesia deciding to fellowship partial inspiration, you could not do otherwise than step aside as you have done" (1885).
"The time for withdrawal is when men drift into unscriptural attitudes of faith or practice. These we note and separate ourselves from, without reference to the question of whether the offenders can be saved, which we cannot decide. And the withdrawal is not putting them out but going out ourselves, as the term implies. We simply go away, saying we cannot be responsible" (April 1891).
In the above quotes, brother Roberts indicates that he would endorse leaving a community of Christadelphians if false doctrine established a foothold therein. By 1923 such had taken place in the Birmingham (Temperance Hall) Fellowship. By harboring erroneous doctrines, and allowing these to establish a foothold, this Fellowship (later known as Central), effectively became a new group based upon different beliefs and standards. And so, brethren and sisters the world over left their company, and, we would suggest, the Biblical Fellowship went with them. – B. W.
"The blame of division on inspiration rests with those who would leave it an open question" (1894).
Brother Roberts advises his readers concerning
the Resurrectional Reponsibility issue and fellowship:
"...There is a difference between those who are uncertain as to the application of the rule of responsibility, and those who deny it altogether. You are in the latter position in denying that responsibility to judgment is created by knowledge and that ground of it is rebellion against the light—a position aggravated by the virtual contention that a man must obey God a little before He can bring him to resurrectional punishment for disobeying Him much. “Under this contention, it follows that the way for a sinner to keep clear of judgment would be to disobey God entirely from the start, and set Him at defiance by keeping out of the water. This would reduce the moral procedure of God to a monstrosity for which we cannot make ourselves responsible in fellowship” (1898).
the Resurrectional Reponsibility issue and fellowship:
“We cannot publish the rescindment of our resolution on responsibility [the amendment of clause 24 as an essential basis of fellowship - ed.], on the understanding that it means the fellowshipping of those who deny that disobedient knowledge of the will of God renders a man liable to resurrectional condemnation. This is a First Principle of the revealed system of truth. Its rejection places a man in a totally different position from those who recognize perceived light as the ground of responsibility, but are uncertain only as to its application” (1898).
"...There is a difference between those who are uncertain as to the application of the rule of responsibility, and those who deny it altogether. You are in the latter position in denying that responsibility to judgment is created by knowledge and that ground of it is rebellion against the light—a position aggravated by the virtual contention that a man must obey God a little before He can bring him to resurrectional punishment for disobeying Him much. “Under this contention, it follows that the way for a sinner to keep clear of judgment would be to disobey God entirely from the start, and set Him at defiance by keeping out of the water. This would reduce the moral procedure of God to a monstrosity for which we cannot make ourselves responsible in fellowship” (1898).
Related fellowship remarks:
"The parable of the tares is wrongly applied if made to nullify the apostolic commandment to 'withdraw from' everyone consenting not to the wholesome words of the Lord Jesus. Our interpretations and applications must leave a place for every precept. This is, in fact, where the difference lies between 'rightly dividing,' and 'wresting the scriptures' (1885).
"Do not be dismayed by divisions....Remember there have been such things from the beginning – even in the days of Christ, and that they must recur periodically so long as good and evil coexist in the world. The point is to be on the side of good" (1885).
"It must needs be that offences (and divisions) come (Matt. 18:7) – they cannot be avoided. So long as heresies exist, so long will there be occasion for division – but separation from false teachers is not a division contrary to the doctrine of our Master and Paul – but one in harmony with both them and their doctrine. Divisions cannot be avoided – when they are the result of heresies – and Paul says: 'There must be also heresies among you that they which are approved may be made manifest among you' (1 Cor. 11:19). When heresy is proved, and every endeavour has been made in vain to bring a brother round, it is also clear that action must be taken by those who would be faithful to the truth. If action is not taken, it is by those who are not themselves confident of their own position, or of the standard by which they gauge the tenets of another" (1894).
"It is not Scriptural for brethren...to fellowship false doctrine on condition of silence" (1894). "...there is no doubt that we make ourselves responsible for known corruption when we continue in fellowship with it" (1894).
"In this age of religious confusion, there is no practicable line of demarcation (that shall lead to anything profitable in spiritual things) short of insistence on the whole truth as the basis of fellowship" (1876).
3."Do not be dismayed by divisions....Remember there have been such things from the beginning – even in the days of Christ, and that they must recur periodically so long as good and evil coexist in the world. The point is to be on the side of good" (1885).
"It must needs be that offences (and divisions) come (Matt. 18:7) – they cannot be avoided. So long as heresies exist, so long will there be occasion for division – but separation from false teachers is not a division contrary to the doctrine of our Master and Paul – but one in harmony with both them and their doctrine. Divisions cannot be avoided – when they are the result of heresies – and Paul says: 'There must be also heresies among you that they which are approved may be made manifest among you' (1 Cor. 11:19). When heresy is proved, and every endeavour has been made in vain to bring a brother round, it is also clear that action must be taken by those who would be faithful to the truth. If action is not taken, it is by those who are not themselves confident of their own position, or of the standard by which they gauge the tenets of another" (1894).
"It is not Scriptural for brethren...to fellowship false doctrine on condition of silence" (1894). "...there is no doubt that we make ourselves responsible for known corruption when we continue in fellowship with it" (1894).
"In this age of religious confusion, there is no practicable line of demarcation (that shall lead to anything profitable in spiritual things) short of insistence on the whole truth as the basis of fellowship" (1876).
John Thomas on Fellowship:
His Matured Convictions (1861-1870)
John Thomas calling for separation
His Matured Convictions (1861-1870)
John Thomas calling for separation
from the Dowieite ecclesias:
"West Hoboken, Hudson Co., N.J. October 28th, 1864: Dear Brother Roberts, I have received from you two letters—one dated February 11th, and the other May 30th—to neither of which have I been able to find time to reply. In relation to the former one, I consider the delay has been an advantage to us both; and in regard to the last, I do not think the procrastination will have resulted in any harm. Had I replied to the former, I should have had to do battle with you to bring you into the position you now occupy with regard to those blind leaders of the blind—Duncan, Dowie, Fordyce and Co. When the truth is in question, the benefit of all doubts should be given to it, not to those whose influence with respect to it is only evil and that continually. You erred in giving them any benefit of doubt in the premises; but I rejoice that you have seen the error, and will no more send inquirers after the truth to inquire at such Gospel nullifiers as they.
"I have a copy of your letter to Dowie. It is straightforward and to the point. We can have no fellowship with men holding such trashy stuff as the April number of the falsely-styled Messenger of the Churches exhibits. A man who believes in the Devil of the religious world and that he has the powers of disease and death, etc., is ignorant of ‘the things of the Name of Jesus Christ.’ If what are styled ‘the churches’ are not delivered from the influence of the above firm of pretentious ignorance, our endeavors to revive apostolic faith and practice in Britain will be a miserable failure. No one should be recognized as one of Christ’s brethren who is not sound in the first principles of the Gospel before immersion. The Kingdom and the Name are the great central topics of the Testimony of Deity. These are the things to be elaborated; and he that is not well and deeply versed in these only shows his folly and presumption in plunging head over ears into prophetic and apocalyptic symbols and mysteries."
"I have a copy of your letter to Dowie. It is straightforward and to the point. We can have no fellowship with men holding such trashy stuff as the April number of the falsely-styled Messenger of the Churches exhibits. A man who believes in the Devil of the religious world and that he has the powers of disease and death, etc., is ignorant of ‘the things of the Name of Jesus Christ.’ If what are styled ‘the churches’ are not delivered from the influence of the above firm of pretentious ignorance, our endeavors to revive apostolic faith and practice in Britain will be a miserable failure. No one should be recognized as one of Christ’s brethren who is not sound in the first principles of the Gospel before immersion. The Kingdom and the Name are the great central topics of the Testimony of Deity. These are the things to be elaborated; and he that is not well and deeply versed in these only shows his folly and presumption in plunging head over ears into prophetic and apocalyptic symbols and mysteries."
John Thomas' letter published to support the doctrinal stand
and subsequent forthright and decisive fellowship
action at the time of separation from Renunciationism:
and subsequent forthright and decisive fellowship
action at the time of separation from Renunciationism:
"It is not my province to issue bulls of excommunication, but simply to show what the Truth teaches and commands. I have to do with principles, not men. If anyone say that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh common to us all, the apostle John saith that that spirit or teacher is not of God; is the deceiver and the antiChrist, and abides not in the doctrine of Christ; and is, therefore, not to be received into the house neither to be bidden Godspeed (1 John 4:3; 2 John 7-10). I have nothing to add to or take from this. It is the sanctifying truth of the things concerning the Name of Jesus Christ. 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, but opposed their teachings. And when they found they could not have their own way, John says: They went out from us, but they (the anti-Christ) were not of us; for if they had been of us (of our fellowship), they would have continued with us. But they went out that it might be made manifest that they were not all of us' (1 John 2:19). The apostles did not cast them out, but they went out of their own accord, not being able to endure sound doctrine (2 Tim. 4:3).
"Then preach the Word, etc., and exhort with all long-suffering and teaching. This is the purifying agency. Ignore brother this or brother that in said teaching; for personalities do not help the argument. Declare what you as a body believe to be the apostles’ doctrines. Invite fellowship upon this 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. The love of God is manifest in all that He has done for man. When all wish to do what is right, the right surely is within their grasp. I trust you will be able to see it, from what is now before you. And may the Truth preside over all your deliberations, for Christ Jesus is the Truth, and dwells with those with whom the Truth is. Where this is, I desire to be.
"If I believe the Truth as it is in the Jesus Paul preached, and fellowship the doctrine of an immaculate Jesus Paul did not preach, in celebrating the death of the latter with those who repudiate the immaculate body set forth by God for a propitiation, it is affirming one thing and practicing another. Those who hold Paul's doctrine ought not worship with a body that does not. That is holding with the hare, and running with the hounds—a position of extraordinary difficulty. When the hounds come upon the hare, where will he be? No; if I agree with you in doctrine, I will forsake the assembling of myself with a body that opposes your doctrine, although it might require me to separate from the nearest and dearest. No good is effected by compromising the principles of the Truth; and to deny that Jesus came in sinful flesh is to destroy the sacrifice of Christ." —The Christadelphian, July 1873, from a letter written in 1869; published also in 1870.
This letter of Bro. Thomas’ was published by Bro. Roberts in 1873 to support his doctrinal stand (and subsequent very forthright and decisive fellowship action) at the time of separation from Renunciationism. It is therefore (in Bro. Roberts’ view at least) in harmony with that stand and action. We can be sure Bro. Roberts well knew the mind of Bro. Thomas. In spite of this, extracted parts of it have been quoted by some in support of a concept of fellowship differing from that which Bro. Roberts taught and exemplified. His action in the Renunciationist crisis, and again in the Inspiration crisis, was certainly what is today in some circles deprecatingly styled “bloc disfellowship."– G.V. Growcott. [or "Separatists" and "Schismatics"]
"Then preach the Word, etc., and exhort with all long-suffering and teaching. This is the purifying agency. Ignore brother this or brother that in said teaching; for personalities do not help the argument. Declare what you as a body believe to be the apostles’ doctrines. Invite fellowship upon this 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. The love of God is manifest in all that He has done for man. When all wish to do what is right, the right surely is within their grasp. I trust you will be able to see it, from what is now before you. And may the Truth preside over all your deliberations, for Christ Jesus is the Truth, and dwells with those with whom the Truth is. Where this is, I desire to be.
"If I believe the Truth as it is in the Jesus Paul preached, and fellowship the doctrine of an immaculate Jesus Paul did not preach, in celebrating the death of the latter with those who repudiate the immaculate body set forth by God for a propitiation, it is affirming one thing and practicing another. Those who hold Paul's doctrine ought not worship with a body that does not. That is holding with the hare, and running with the hounds—a position of extraordinary difficulty. When the hounds come upon the hare, where will he be? No; if I agree with you in doctrine, I will forsake the assembling of myself with a body that opposes your doctrine, although it might require me to separate from the nearest and dearest. No good is effected by compromising the principles of the Truth; and to deny that Jesus came in sinful flesh is to destroy the sacrifice of Christ." —The Christadelphian, July 1873, from a letter written in 1869; published also in 1870.
This letter of Bro. Thomas’ was published by Bro. Roberts in 1873 to support his doctrinal stand (and subsequent very forthright and decisive fellowship action) at the time of separation from Renunciationism. It is therefore (in Bro. Roberts’ view at least) in harmony with that stand and action. We can be sure Bro. Roberts well knew the mind of Bro. Thomas. In spite of this, extracted parts of it have been quoted by some in support of a concept of fellowship differing from that which Bro. Roberts taught and exemplified. His action in the Renunciationist crisis, and again in the Inspiration crisis, was certainly what is today in some circles deprecatingly styled “bloc disfellowship."– G.V. Growcott. [or "Separatists" and "Schismatics"]
John Thomas on fellowshipping errorists:
"It is probable, however, that there was a remnant even in Laodicea; that all the members of the ecclesia did not share in the lukewarmness of the generation coeval with the Apocalypse. Some probably sorrowed over the faithlessness of the Eldership, and the declension of the generality. If they succeeded in maintaining their position as faithful witnesses of the name and faith of Jesus Anointed, till the ejectment of the Angel from the Spirit's mouth, they would themselves become a distinct and separate party, characterized as 'keeping the commandments of the Deity, and having the testimony of Jesus Anointed'; while the others who were spued out as an utter abomination, are known on the page of history as 'THE CATHOLIC CHURCH,' the Mother of Romish and Protestant Sectarianism. Rev. 12 : 7; 17 : 5. (Eureka, vol. 1, p 415, 1869 ed.)
If the Remnant in Laodicea became a successful, "faithful witness of the name and faith of Jesus Anointed," they would ultimately depart from the Lukewarm and become a "separate party." This separation, according to brother Thomas, occurred when the Lukewarm were "ejected" by the Spirit. –B.W.
“The name Christians comprehended all the adherents of Balaam and Jezebel, whether Ebionites, Gnostics or by whatever name or denomination of heresy, they might be known. The ‘real christians’ had no fellowship with such; though among them, as in Pergamos, the poison of the serpent might be detected. The ecclesia and the synagogue of the Satan were institutions as distinct as they are now; for in the nineteenth century a true believer of the gospel of the kingdom is against all who have not obeyed the same; yet a congregation of ‘real christians’ may have in it some who are not true, as at Pergamos; these will sooner or later show themselves, for their sympathies are fleshly, and they become impatient of principles which they regard as harsh, uncharitable, and severe” (Eureka, vol. 1, p 270, 1869 ed.).
During "the nineteenth century" (and twentieth) many errorists within Ecclesias of the Birmingham (Temperance Hall) Fellowship (later known as Central) did indeed "show themselves." By harboring erroneous doctrines, and allowing such to establish a foothold, they effectively became a new group based upon different beliefs and standards, and the "real christians," as brother Thomas puts it, were "against all" and, consequently, "had no fellowship with such." –B.W.
During "the nineteenth century" (and twentieth) many errorists within Ecclesias of the Birmingham (Temperance Hall) Fellowship (later known as Central) did indeed "show themselves." By harboring erroneous doctrines, and allowing such to establish a foothold, they effectively became a new group based upon different beliefs and standards, and the "real christians," as brother Thomas puts it, were "against all" and, consequently, "had no fellowship with such." –B.W.
John Thomas on the separation of the Remnant from Laodicea:
"It is probable, however, that there was a remnant even in Laodicea; that all the members of the ecclesia did not share in the lukewarmness of the generation coeval with the Apocalypse. Some probably sorrowed over the faithlessness of the Eldership, and the declension of the generality. If they succeeded in maintaining their position as faithful witnesses of the name and faith of Jesus Anointed, till the ejectment of the Angel from the Spirit's mouth, they would themselves become a distinct and separate party, characterized as 'keeping the commandments of the Deity, and having the testimony of Jesus Anointed'; while the others who were spued out as an utter abomination, are known on the page of history as 'THE CATHOLIC CHURCH,' the Mother of Romish and Protestant Sectarianism. Rev. 12 : 7; 17 : 5. (Eureka, vol. 1, p 415, 1869 ed.)
If the Remnant in Laodicea became a successful, "faithful witness of the name and faith of Jesus Anointed," they would ultimately depart from the Lukewarm and become a "separate party." This separation, according to brother Thomas, occurred when the Lukewarm were "ejected" by the Spirit. –B.W.
John Thomas on the separation
of Christadelphians from the Brethren in the West:
of Christadelphians from the Brethren in the West:
"Your readers, then, will understand that we Christadelphians in America are a distinct generation from the so-called Benjamites and their dear 'brethren in the West.' These 'brethren in the West,' it will be seen, lately so cosy and complimentary, are now at daggers drawn. They have fallen out by the way, and are divided into two hostile bands, ready to swallow one another up. We Christadelphians are an united people with no turbulent ambitious spirits in our midst, and though few and scattered, we are strong in the faith, and unspoiled by the accursed crotchets which, when blended with it, make it, ineffectual, and generative only of knaves and hypocrites. The wicked, who only sympathize with the wicked, hate us, and deem us outrageously exclusive; and as my works have made me the most notorious among them, I come in for the most of their false and hypocritical abuse. No good man has ever assailed me yet; nor do I fear that such ever will; and as to any other assailants, their shafts shoot past me as the idle wind, which I respect not…
"The characteristic of a true Christadelphian is 'the obedience of faith' and a 'walk worthy of God;' in other words, he first understands the things of the Kingdom of God, and Name of Jesus Christ; secondly, he believes what he understands, and loves what he believes above every other thing; thirdly, his 'faith working by love' causes him to be immersed into the Divine Name; fourthly, he walks in the truth, and is careful to do nothing to its injury: and fifthly, he will not fellowship those who do not so believe and do. This is the Christadelphian theory and practice which separates us from Dowieites with you, and Benjamites and 'brethren in the West' over here . Personally, I might gain by a less rigid and exclusive order of things: but then, the truth would suffer; therefore I repudiate it. This is the barrier between us and certain in the West who may have obeyed the gospel; they fellowship those who have not; and for us to fellowship them, would be to let in Storrites, Jacobites, Millerites, Adventists, Campbellites, and such like, who, coming in like a flood with their traditions and fanaticisms, would swamp the truth, and in a very short time destroy the labours and conflicts of years. I have been endeavouring to get back to apostolic distinctiveness, and to carry back as many with me as possible, and I will not stand by inertly and see knaves, hypocrites, and brethren, too 'charitable' for the good fight of faith, making void this endeavour. I lift up my voice against it, and though it may be little heeded. there is a satisfaction in doing the best we can" (1865)
"The characteristic of a true Christadelphian is 'the obedience of faith' and a 'walk worthy of God;' in other words, he first understands the things of the Kingdom of God, and Name of Jesus Christ; secondly, he believes what he understands, and loves what he believes above every other thing; thirdly, his 'faith working by love' causes him to be immersed into the Divine Name; fourthly, he walks in the truth, and is careful to do nothing to its injury: and fifthly, he will not fellowship those who do not so believe and do. This is the Christadelphian theory and practice which separates us from Dowieites with you, and Benjamites and 'brethren in the West' over here . Personally, I might gain by a less rigid and exclusive order of things: but then, the truth would suffer; therefore I repudiate it. This is the barrier between us and certain in the West who may have obeyed the gospel; they fellowship those who have not; and for us to fellowship them, would be to let in Storrites, Jacobites, Millerites, Adventists, Campbellites, and such like, who, coming in like a flood with their traditions and fanaticisms, would swamp the truth, and in a very short time destroy the labours and conflicts of years. I have been endeavouring to get back to apostolic distinctiveness, and to carry back as many with me as possible, and I will not stand by inertly and see knaves, hypocrites, and brethren, too 'charitable' for the good fight of faith, making void this endeavour. I lift up my voice against it, and though it may be little heeded. there is a satisfaction in doing the best we can" (1865)
John Thomas on fellowshipping at Jezebel's Table:
"Paul’s anxiety was that the Corinthian brethren should ‘not have fellowship with demons,’ or deified imaginary ghosts, called ‘immortal souls.’ These demons had a table and a cup, as well as the Lord; and Paul taught that they could not partake of both without sin. The same demons have a table and a cup now, modified, however, in this, that bread cut up into pieces, emblematic of the divisions of antichristendom, is substituted for meats offered to the demons. The table spread by the clergy, and called by them ‘the sacrament,’ is the modern table of the demons. It is the table of those who believe in deified immortal souls, who are the gods of the clerical system. It is Jezebel's table, at which a saint cannot eat without having fellowship with the demons she funeralizes to glory, which is sin. Her churches are a synagogue of unbaptized ‘miserable sinners,’ as they proclaim themselves to be in their prayers, and consequently, her table cannot be the Lord’s, for his teaching has no place for such there—the miserable patrons of demons belong to Jezebel, not to the spouse of Christ." (Eureka, vol. 1, pp 327-328, 1869 ed.)
There are some in present day Christadelphia who use John Thomas' early writings as justification for the toleration of loose fellowship. The problem with their reasoning is that it fails to take into account the fact that by ca. 1861, brother Thomas had matured in his convictions concerning the doctrine of Biblical fellowship. The above excerpts from his later writings prove this beyond doubt. By the 1860s, brother Thomas had disfellowshipped both the Wilson and Dowieite Ecclesias – B.W.
There are some in present day Christadelphia who use John Thomas' early writings as justification for the toleration of loose fellowship. The problem with their reasoning is that it fails to take into account the fact that by ca. 1861, brother Thomas had matured in his convictions concerning the doctrine of Biblical fellowship. The above excerpts from his later writings prove this beyond doubt. By the 1860s, brother Thomas had disfellowshipped both the Wilson and Dowieite Ecclesias – B.W.
(This page last updated February 3, 2008)