"They received the Word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.  Therefore many believed."--Acts 17:11

Berean Christadelphians

Index

For Further Information Contact:  Jim Phillips

 
Berean Christadelphians
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 8 of 9     «   Prev   5   6   7   8   9   Next
denddavis

Registered:
Posts: 4
Reply with quote  #106 

May I post the following excerpt from Bro. Thomas (black, and some blue), with my understanding of his words included within his sentences (red)?

 

I hope that all things are rectified in a certain direction (‘I hope the following problem has been solved.’). It is a monstrous conceit that “the only discipline the Ecclesia can enforce in these times (during our probationary days, unlike during Paul’s day- 1 Cor. 11; see verses below) is against false doctrine, and not against immorality of conduct.” (In other words, ‘It is the conceited thinking of the flesh within ‘the Ecclesia’ that withdraws Fellowship for ‘false doctrine,’ and rightfully so, in an effort to save life, obviously; but neglects to withdraw ‘against immorality of conduct.’ I noticed that the latter part of this statement appears to be quoted by Bro. Thomas (notice blue quotation marks above). If so, it would be reasonable to assume he is addressing a particular individual/individuals within the Ecclesia, as well as all the members, while combating this ‘monstrous  conceit’) Such a rule as this (not withdrawing from those who walk immorally, but only from those who hold false doctrine, as per the quote Bro. Thomas makes), approved by any society of professors (agreed to by any Ecclesia), would make it a fellowship of iniquity (would make such an Ecclesia out of Fellowship with the Apostles, and in fellowship with the flesh, as a result of their evil actions). For myself, I would not belong to such a body of evil doers (not wishing to fellowship the flesh, Bro. Thomas would not join such evil doers; and as mentioned above, he would enforce discipline against such, in an effort to save them). The conceit is itself false doctrine (that is, the notion that a true, faithful saint is not obligated to withdraw from those who only believe no action has to be taken against those who walk immorally, but who hold correct doctrine, is false. They are obligated. This harmful doctrine has no place in the Truth; the thinking of the flesh conceives such destructive nonsense. True followers of Christ lovingly withdraw from those that idly watch others sin, as well as from those that sin, for all of their welfare), and, therefore, a matter of discipline (not only are those within the Ecclesia who walk immorally to be disciplined, but also those who believe such immoral persons need not be disciplined, for all of their good). Such a dogma (sit back and do nothing teaching) is symptomatic (indicative) of immorality in the holder (they are guilty of sin too). An ecclesia should, at least, aim to keep itself free from the corruptions that are in the world through lust, though it may not succeed to the extent desired (an Ecclesia should at least try to keep themselves free from immoral conduct, which includes those who walk immorally, as well as those who do nothing about it, which is regarded by Yahweh as the same thing; namely, immoral. They may not succeed as much as they wish, but at least try; don’t sit back and do nothing). To fellowship iniquity knowingly, and without rebuke, makes us partakers in the guilt. (And therefore, while in the Ecclesia, these are in fellowship with iniquity, and not in the Apostles’ Fellowship with Christ, Yahweh, and the faithful Brethren) The Christadelphian : Volume 3 Bd. 3. electronic ed. Birmingham : Christadelphian Magazine & Publishing Association, 2001, c1866, S. 3:206

 

Armed with Bro. Thomas’ understanding of this excerpt, I conclude the following concerning 1 Cor. 11: 26-30:

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, (while members in the Ecclesia and partaking with all) shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord (but not in the Apostles’ Fellowship, which includes none that are “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord”). 28 But let a man examine himself (in the Ecclesia with all the members, before partaking), and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup (and then partake of the Emblems at Meeting with the other Brethren). 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily (at Meeting), eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body (these are definitely not in Fellowship with Christ, even though partaking of the emblems with all the Brethren, but rather in fellowship with the flesh; hence their fitting and harsh punishment to awaken them from their folly, even death. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. (While members with those that were in the Apostles’ Fellowship, these were in fellowship with the flesh, as demonstrated by their failing health, as well as their eventual and certain deaths, if they repented not).

 

The Apostle continues in verses 31- 34:

 

31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. (If we partake of the Emblems faithfully, even after we have partaken of them unfaithfully, then we will not suffer weakness, sickness, and death; and not only now, but we shall also not suffer them at the Judgment Seat of Christ. But we must turn now from the fellowship with the flesh while partaking of the Emblems, and engage in the Apostles’ Fellowship while remembering Christ, with the other faithful Brethren.) 32 But when we are judged (in mercy), we are chastened (disciplined, like Bro. Thomas mentions in the above excerpt) of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world (because after discipline, we repent and leave the fellowship of the flesh, or world, and faithfully join the Apostles’ Fellowship). 33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. 34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation (the Lord’s Judgment for deserting to the flesh’s fellowship; the Lord Himself does not sit back and do nothing, which is a powerful Example for us).

 

I perceive Bro. Genusa is striving to help us, not destroy us. Bereans are not the only “Fellowship” he has in his sights, and for all of our good. I could be wrong, but I believe the above understanding of Bro. Thomas and the Apostle Paul is the same as his understanding. If it is, then I agree with him. I’m open to all topics, but for now, could someone please just explain how any of the above is incorrect, or correct?

 Thank you, and in the bonds of Yahweh’s Truth, Bro. Dennis Davis Pioneer/Maranatha


broBW

Registered:
Posts: 936
Reply with quote  #107 

Of Bereans and "Catholicism"

Quote:
The ecclesia evolved into the Church, not because they wanted to embrace heretics, but because they believed their unionization, leadership, and standardized creed would lock heretics out. That one little fact is completely ignored by brethren today who, as in former times, want to "secure doctrinal purity" and are willing to ignore Apostolic practices to try and achieve it. -SG

*bro SG's attempt to portray Berean Christadelphians as "catholic" because we, he asserts, ignore apostolic practice in fellowship, is  both incorrect and saddening. Allow us to once again reiterate apostolic commandment:

Quote:
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)

Following these texts has nothing to do with any catholicism. These are Apostolic teachings that Berean Christadelphians try to obey.

Bro SG uses the phrase "standardized creed" as if Bereans are guilty of "catholic" practice.  Exactly what is a "standardized creed"? It is a statement of commonly held beliefs. This sounds like the BASF to which bro SG and his "Central Fellowship" most certainly subscribes to. So this cannot be the "standardized creed" he is referring to. The following is from his ecclesia website:

Quote:

Statement of Faith

A Statement of the Doctrines
forming the Christadelphian Basis
of Fellowship


Oh, but then there is the Berean Restatement. Perhaps this is the "standardized creed" he is referring to. If this is so then he has a "standardized creed "of his own.  The following is also from his ecclesial website. This is a lengthy Statement of which we produce an excerpt. Brethren may go to his Tyler ecclesial site to read all of it:

Quote:

Tyler-Longview Central Ecclesia
A Christadelphian Statement
on The Atonement




Doctrinal Affirmations
1. That the word `sin' is used in two principal acceptations in the Scripture.
a. It signifies in the first place `the transgression of law' (eg. Lev 6:2; Jam 4:17). Sin in its first acceptation is a moral issue.
b. In the second definition `sin' represents that physical principle of the animal nature which is the cause of all its diseases, death, and resolution into dust (2Cor 5:21; 1Pe 2:24). It is that which has the power of death (Heb 2:14). This `sin' is a physical issue that does not impute moral or legal guilt. [The false logic that suggests that it imputes moral or legal guilt, would by parity of reasoning conclude that the inheritance of death carried with it legal or moral guilt - a patently false conclusion.]
2. That the Edenic sentence of death, muth temuth (Gen 2:17) was not a sentence to be consummated in a moment, as when a man is shot or guillotined. The death threatened was the result, or finishing, of a certain process; which is very clearly indicated in the original Hebrew. The sentence, then, as a whole reads thus-“In the day of thy eating from it dying thou shalt die” (EI, p. 69). From this, it is evident, that Adam was to be subjected to a process, but not to an endless process; but to one which should commence with the transgression, and end with his death and resolution into dust. (Gen 3:19)
3. That all who are born of a woman (Job 14:1-4) are born under the physical and hereditary `law of sin and death' (Rom 5:12, 7:23; 1Co 15:22). That `the law of sin and death' is a single law (Rom 8:2) and cannot be separated. That to be mortal is not only to be under “the shadow of death”, but to have that which has the power of death (Heb 2:14). Conversely, sin when it is finished bringeth forth death (Jam 1:15). To destroy (Heb 2:14; 1Co 15:53-54) that having `the power of death,' is to abolish this physical law of sin and death, and instead thereof, to substitute the physical 'law of the spirit of life,' by which the same body would be changed in its constitution, and live for ever. (Rom 6:23)
4. That the Mosaic law condemned transgression (Rom 7:7) and the transgressor (eg. Num. 15:32-35; Deu 13:6-9) but it could not condemn the nature (diabolos), `for all have sinned' (Rom 3:23), and therefore any condemnation meted out was “a just recompense of reward” (Heb 2:2). What the law could not do, in that it was weak because of the flesh (for “when the commandment came, sin revived” - Rom 7:9) God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. If the death of a transgressor would have sufficed, then Adam and Eve might have been put to death at once, and raised to live again. But this was not according to the divine wisdom. The great principle to be compassed was the condemnation of sin in sinful flesh, innocent of actual transgression.
5. The Mosaic institutions were a figure for the time then present, but could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience (Heb 10:2, Heb 9:9, 7:11) because the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins (Heb 10:4). God having prepared some better thing for us: “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” (Joh 1:29)
6. Therefore when Messiah cometh into the world he saith Mosaic sacrifices thou wouldst not, but “a body hast thou prepared for me” (Heb 10:5). God, in a figure, “laid on” Christ “the iniquity of us all” (Isa 53:6). As 1Pe 2:24 tells us, “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body”. These expressions were fulfilled in Christ being “made of a woman, made under the law” (Galatians 4:4). “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin” (2Co 5:21). The physical nature or body of Christ was “made like unto his brethren” (Heb 2:17). “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same” (Heb 2:14), taking “on him the seed of Abraham” (Heb 2:16). Sinful flesh being the hereditary nature of the Lord Jesus, He was a fit and proper sacrifice for sin; especially as he was innocent of transgression (1Pe 2:22) having been obedient in all things.
7. As to his character, Christ was the Deity manifest in flesh (1Ti 3:16; Isa 40:3; Joh 14:7, 9; Heb 1:3). He was “tried in all points like as we, yet without sin” (Heb 4:15).
8. That after living a life of perfect obedience his work culminated in a sacrificial offering for the redemption of himself and for his people as the anti-typical High Priest of Israel. (Heb 5:3, 7:27, 8:3, 9:7-9).
9. That in the sacrifice of Christ,
a. God's righteousness was declared (Rom 3:25-26)
b. God condemned sin in the flesh (Joh 12:31; Rom 8:3; Joh 3:14), and thereby justified (Rom 3:26) His forbearance with and forgiveness of sinners (Rom 3:25). God's supremacy having been vindicated (Rom 3:26; Joh 12:28, 21:19), a foundation has been laid (1Co 3:11) on which He can offer forgiveness (1Jo 1:9) without the compromise of His wisdom and righteousness. He does not offer it, or allow it, apart from submission to the declaration of His righteousness in Christ crucified (Joh 3:15, 36; Joh 5:24, 39; Rom 3:26, 30; Col 2:12). There must be the most humble identification with that declaration. (Rom 3:25-26)
10. These things could not have been accomplished in Christ if his nature was destitute of that physical principle, styled, `Sin in the flesh' (Rom 8:3; 1Jo 4:3; Heb 2:14). Decree the immaculateness of the body prepared for the Spirit (Psalm 40:6; Heb 10:5), and the `mystery of the Christ' is destroyed, and the gospel of the kingdom ceases to be the power of God for salvation to those that believe it. (Rom 1:16; 2Co 11:4; Gal 1:6-7; Gal 3:3; Rom 10:3)
11. The word 'atonement' in Hebrew signifies 'to cover', and therefore has application to Christ, as well as to others. But we not only need physical redemption from mortality, we also require the forgiveness of actual sins committed. It cannot be disputed that the term `atonement' has been used in Christadelphian literature for nearly 150 years to indicate both physical covering as well as forgiveness.
12. The statement that Christ did these things `for us' has blinded many to the fact that he did them `for himself' first (Heb 5:7, 13:20) - without which, he could not have done them for us, for it was by doing them for himself that He did them for us. He did them for us only as we may become part of him, in merging our individualities in him by taking part in his death, and putting on his name and sharing his life afterwards. He is, as it were, a new centre of healthy life, in which we must become incorporate before we can be saved. (Heb 5:9; Matt 16:24; Joh 17:22; 1Ti 3:16)
13. That Christ is the anti-typical altar (Heb 13:10), the anti-typical laver, the anti-typical High Priest (Heb 9:11), the anti-typical mercyseat (Rom 3:25, Heb 9:5), the “antitypical everything” as brother Roberts described him in The Law of Moses, p. 170-172.
14. We believe that the phrases such as “atonement for nature” and “sacrifice for nature” are non-specific and elastic phrases that suggest a mechanical operation in God's plan of redemption and should not be used. [The phrases do not appear to occur in any early Christadelphian literature till the late 1890's and early 1900's. Though their origin is unclear, they appear to have been widely used by clean-flesh teachers of the early 1900's as an excuse for rejecting the 2nd acceptation of the word `sin'.]

Doctrinal Errors We Categorically Reject
1. “That `sin in the flesh,' or sin as a metaphor”, is “considered as a moral thing.” (A.D. Strickler, OOD, p. 83)
2. That Christ literally bore our personal transgressions in his body (H. Fry, EPC, p. 41, A.D. Strickler, OOD p. 64)
3. That Christ's offering was a substitutionary sacrifice for man. (Harry Fry EPC p. 47; Allen D. Strickler OOD, p. 25, 46)
4. That Christ suffered `the punishment due to or for sin' (A.D. Strickler, OOD, p. 46, 98 et al.)
...


Great creed. What's the purpose of it? What is the purpose of an ecclesial Statement? Is it not to define a position? Why is it necessary to define a position? Is it not to set fellowship parameters? Why is it necessary to set fellowship parameters? Is it not to include some and exclude others? Is brother SG prepared to fellowship Central Partial Atonement advocates? We do not believe that he is.

Oh, but the Berean Restatement is commonly held among all of our ecclesias. Perhaps this is our crime? Would brother SG be unhappy with all Central ecclesias if they adopted his Ecclesial Statement? Would he criticize them as he now berates us? Would he charge them with "Unionization"? Would he not rather rejoice that all Central is finally of one mind on the Atonement - that they finally have a commonly held document that isolates error and embraces the truth - that they have finally achieved the oneness of mind that is the Apostolic ideal?

Once again, SG says:

Quote:
The ecclesia evolved into the Church, not because they wanted to embrace heretics, but because they believed their unionization, leadership, and standardized creed would lock heretics out. That one little fact is completely ignored by brethren today who, as in former times, want to "secure doctrinal purity" and are willing to ignore Apostolic practices to try and achieve it. -SG

I believe that we'd prefer the Apostolic reason as to why or how the ecclesia "evolved" into the Church:

 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

Perhaps bro SG would like to point out what fables are in our BASF? In the Berean Restatement? In his ecclesial Statement?


* Correction 6/11/08: This parargraph should read: bro SG's attempt to portray Berean Christadelphians as "catholic" because we, he asserts,  ignore apostolic practice in fellowship, is  both incorrect and saddening. Allow us to once again reiterate apostolic commandment:

JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #108 

Quote:

I perceive Bro. Genusa is striving to help us, not destroy us. Bereans are not the only “Fellowship” he has in his sights, and for all of our good. I could be wrong, but I believe the above understanding of Bro. Thomas and the Apostle Paul is the same as his understanding. If it is, then I agree with him. I’m open to all topics, but for now, could someone please just explain how any of the above is incorrect, or correct?

 

Hi bro. Dennis,

 

Welcome to this site.

 

I don't think anyone is challenging bro. Genusa's motive.  No doubt, in his own way, he believes he is trying to help.

 

I don't think there is anything wrong in what you have written.  I think everyone is in agreement on those points.

 

The points of difference from what bro. Genusa has written, is

 

1).  that he believes in the transference of evil through fellowship.  If we say that we are in fellowship with each other, then evil known and unknown would necessarily transfer to each other.  Since God and Christ cannot be in fellowship with evil, our fellowship practice puts us out of fellowship with God and Christ, as there is always in an ecclesia/fellowship, evil somewhere.

 

2)  that he believes our separation  from Central is an excommunicating them, and not withdrawing from them (as we believe it is).

 

3)  He believes separating from Central is the equivalent of the hireling, fleeing the wolf, and that our separation is condemned by the parable of the Good Shepherd

 

4)  He believes that our separation is different from the behavior of the apostolic brethren in their ecclesias.  He points to the problems in Corinth and the Apocalypse to show that there was error in those ecclesias, and he argues that since the apostles did not withdraw from them, we shouldn't either.

 

There are many other things that are much harder to define.  There are things where he has offered his condemnation, without specifically explaining what he thinks is correct.  For instance, while he will condemn us for meeting on the BASF, his ecclesia meets on the BASF.  He has written well against Evolution, but complained about the phrase rejecting evolution in the Berean Restatement.  I'm sure it all makes sense to him somehow, but I'm also sure I could not correctly define his views in these areas.

 

Jim

fhigham

Registered:
Posts: 1,023
Reply with quote  #109 

The following statement appeared on Bro. Genusa’s web site claiming that the Bereans do follow normal Christadelphian procedures in the cases of disfellowship but have to go  through a “episkopos.” - Like there was some sort of hierarchy arrangement. His erroneous statement is as follows:

“[Another brother reminds me of the case where a brother and sister were disfellowshipped for... baptizing without the approval of Berean episkopos. The Berean magazine reported the incident:

"We regret to report that we have withdrawn fellowship from bro. and sis.[]. They do not believe in upholding the rules, regulations and procedures of the Berean Christadelphian Fellowship. It is our continued prayer that they will see the error of their way and we will welcome them back as our bro. and sis. in Christ." SG

In questioning him several times to get the source and month of issue of this so it could be answered in a friendly way, Bro. Genusa made as if it was a big secret and would not disclose it, but rather asked other questions of me that were not on the issue.
 
I can see why when I did a search through the years where I thought this situation might be, and it confirmed the situation. The _____'s were learning the Truth in Texas when Ruth and I were in the Houston Ecclesia.

They did come in contact with the Truth in Texas and they then moved to Tennessee and were examined again there successfully. They had a relative close to their house in Tennessee and were teaching him the Truth. Rather than approach the ecclesia they were in fellowship with to perform the examination and baptism, they went ahead and baptized this relative on their own as if this were a normal thing to do.

They violated the normal procedure that is followed in any ecclesia, whether Berean or Central. I am sure if this happened in Tyler-Longview, the Tyler-Longview ecclesia would want to know more about their examination, especially in regard to their “at the door” statement before they would break bread with them. There was nothing in this local ecclesial matter that even seems like an episkopos” calling the shots.
 
We next learned of the _______'s family when their daughter appeared at our Hye gathering several years later and we found they had joined with a Central ecclesia. As you can see they were not disfellowshipped by any episkopos” or anybody other than the local ecclesia in Holladay, Tennessee. I wished to point this out to Bro. Genusa but he wished to be evasive with me in trying to get to the source so it could be explained.

 

March 1982

HOLLADAY, Tenn…

 

LOVING Greetings to the Household of Faith.

We are very happy to report that after a good confession of the Faith,

______ and his wife, _______, were immersed into the Saving

Name of Christ on March 14, and will be meeting with us in Holladay…

 

With much love in the Truth, — bro. ______

 

August. 1983

HOLLADAY, Tenn…

 

LOVING greetings to the Household of Faith.

We regret to report that we have withdrawn fellowship from bro. and sis.

_______. They do not believe in upholding the rules, regulations and

procedures of the Berean Christadelphian Fellowship. It is our continued

prayer that they will see the error of their way and we will welcome them

back as our bro. and sis. in Christ…

 

With much love in the Truth, — bro. ­­­­­­________

 

In the same web posting, this erroneous comment was made:

"[I am reminded by a brother that at least one Berean has demanded authority over a class with non-Berean Christadelphians, thus demanding he occupy the priest-teacher role if he was going to participate at all. This means the other baptized students were to be his laity. Mere sheep unable to do without the priest leadership. Berean prohibitions against mixing with Central brethren, even in study of the Scriptures, speaks to more than I care to elaborate on, if that is even necessary.]"SG

I mentioned to Bro. Genusa that I know of no “prohibitions against mixing with Central brethren, even in study of the Scriptures. To this Bro. Genusa responded that:

 

“There are multiple living witnesses to this Berean case, it having occurred in your lifetime, so you are asserting claims about something you (apparently) have no knowledge or basis to deny.” SG

 

I have heard of individuals recommend not mixing with Central (including my father) but certainly this is strictly a personal matter and many have associated in private study classes together.

There may be some reference to classes at a gathering such as Hye where there is a Hye (only) rule about not calling on a brother from another fellowship to comment. This rule was brought about because my brother in law wished to argue over Christ sacrifice for himself. This was out of place to the discussion at hand and a rule was imposed to maintain the positive up-building nature of the Texas Hye gathering. I feel reasonably certain that Bro. Genusa would not permit someone from another fellowship to interrupt a normal Bible study group in the ecclesia to which he belongs.

His last correspondence, instead of a short answer to my friendly request, was to request to:

 “Allow me to digress for just a moment and consider your request for “a straight answer”. Is _____ a first principle or not? Is _____ a matter of fellowship or not?” SG

Answering a question with a question was not something I wished to pursue but simply asked for the information to the Berean news item he quoted from.

broBW

Registered:
Posts: 936
Reply with quote  #110 
Thank you, bro Fred.

If the present assertion is correct - that of a Berean Episkopos -  then when applying for fellowship I should have appeared before some sort of Berean Overseer with controling authority over a Diocese of Texas, or perhaps of the Southwest.

Sorry to disappoint the Assertor.

It didn't happen that way.

Shall I go into the details of what really happens when one applies for fellowship? I would, except judging from your experience with the Assertor,  I don't believe he's interested.

However, for the benefit of those who are interested, let me simply say that I haven't encountered this Episkopos fellow.

Not when I applied for fellowship eight years ago via the serving brethren of the Lampasas ecclesia.

Not since.

There are multiple living witnesses to this Berean case.


JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #111 
These things just point further to the desperation of bro. Genusa.  It is obvious that he is writing to Central, or others besides Bereans.  Bereans know the circumstances behind his accusations, and we know how off base he is.  We know there is no such thing as an episkopos.  We know there are no rules for meeting with those from other fellowships.  Individual brethren will act in whatever manner they are comfortable.  So obviously, his target audience is not Berea, but Central/Unamended brethren dissatisfied with the error in Central, and these things are merely bro. Genusa's desperate efforts to dissuade them from considering us.

I once went to a Central function in Escondidio California, which was organized to view bro. Richard Stone's teachings on the atonement.  (Bro. Dennis Davis who has just joined this board may have been there, I can't recall.)  A Central brother, and Escondido's recorder, Martin Owen, presided.  At one point he raised the Berean Magazine and spoke derogatorily of the articles in it, which now comprise the booklet, "The Purifying of the Heavenly."

I raised my hand to respond, and he just ignored me.  He ignored me throughout the rest of the meeting, though for awhile I just kept my hand up even while speakers were talking (just to make the point.)  I hardly took that as a "Central Position" or as Central wishing to maintain a Priest/teacher relationship.  I took it as bro. Owen understanding just how bad his position was going to appear if he gave me the floor.  So he refused.

At another point in time, bro. Ellis Higham, then Central (bro. Fred's brother, now deceased) was to attend a meeting in Los Angeles to discuss his accusations against bro. Richard Stone and bro. John Hensley, which bro. Ellis had made at Reseda, during a Reunion discussion (with the Unamendeds).  Bro. Ellis was quite sickly, and the stress of the circumstances aggravated his condition, and caused him to have to miss the meeting.  He asked the committee to accept me in his stead to make and defend his charges. 

He was told in no uncertain terms that I was not to attend.  And further, he was told that if I showed up, I would not be admitted.  Again, I hardly felt this was a Central position that they refused to admit Bereans.  Indeed, some of the participating ecclesias had already gone out of their way to make sure I knew I was welcome at their ecclesia.  They just didn't want me at that meeting.  I get that.  I guess bro. Genusa doesn't.

I might add another personal note.  The brother who learned the truth in Houston, who said he taught the truth to his relative (though he refused to allow the Holliday ecclesia the opportunity to examine the family member while demanding their fellowship) showed up at Hye one year, sometime after he had abdicated to Central. 

I was speaking that year, on the subject of fellowship.  I had written a talk, but I knew that this brother was just waiting to make a scene.  I thought it wise not to deliver my talk, but instead, I substituted Central bro. John Ullman's talk, which can be found at http://www.angelfire.com/bc2/Bereans/Cornerstones/Fellowship/johnullman.html

As I expected, following this talk (which they did not know was a Central brother's talk) they (the brother, his wife, and daughter) made a big deal, packed up and left that night with all the obligatory "Bereans are unloving, etc." comments on the side.  Explaining to them that they were criticizing a Central  brother's talk, only made them more angry (I suppose through embarrassment.)  I've certainly never been able to second guess the Holliday brethren for their action in this matter. 
JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #112 

Conclusion:

Responding to the numerous charges raised by bro. Genusa  has been a lengthy exercise, but the results were what I expected, indeed what bro. Genusa's own words confirmed in advance it would be.  He wrote of my booklet:

"...Are there substantial text differences? Yes. Are there substantial doctrinal differences. Not that I've seen but I would not expect to see that."–Stephen Genusa.

The so called "substantial text differences," which I have shown not to have been substantial at all, but rather minor and insignificant changes, the omitting of historical data or simply shortening articles for space reasons, in no way changed or misrepresented the doctrinal position of bre. Roberts and Thomas in any of the articles quoted.  These articles, whether in their original form, or as quoted in "The Doctrine of Fellowship," showed bre. Thomas and Roberts' fellowship position to be identical to that of the Bereans.  Their doctrinal position was that the Truth is such a weak and fragile thing, that it cannot be compromised with error.  Error cannot be given a standing, without losing the truth.  They believed this was true whether we consider the individual, the ecclesia, or the entire fellowship.

This is the point which is made over and over again throughout these articles.  Bro. Genusa attempts to confuse the matter with minutia, whining about capitalization, or other format changes, hoping he can make the teachings of the Pioneers go away.  In so doing, he hopes to escape the force of these articles.  But there is no amount of complaining which will change this fundamental principle upon which we disagree:  (From Fellowship, Its Nature and Conditions by bro. Roberts)

8. That we are not at liberty to receive any one who denies or refuses to believe any of them, because the receiving of such would open the way for the currency of their principles among us, with the tendency of leavening the whole community. The elements of the Truth are so mutually related that the displacement of one undermines the foundation of the whole.

9. A man himself believing the Truth, but willing to wink at its denial among those in fellowship in any of its essential elements, becomes, by this willingness, an offender against the law of Christ, which requires the faithful maintenance of the whole.

Faithful servants of Christ cannot unite with such, on the ground that though he hold the Truth himself, such a man is responsible for the error of those he would admit, and therefore becomes the channel of a similar responsibility to those who may endorse him in fellowship- "He that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds" (2 John 11).

10. That it is the duty of the friends of the Truth to uphold it as a basis of union among themselves by refusing to receive either those who deny any part of it, or those who would receive those so denying. [My emboldening--jp]

The emboldened section is what sets us apart from those in Central who still receive the truth.  We believe the brethren who would receive errorists, are individually disobedient to divine command, and cannot themselves be received into fellowship.  Bro. Genusa, and the schism within Central with which he identifies and fellowships, believes they can.  This entire discussion is about this one point, yet throughout all the minutia, bro. Genusa fails to ever address that one point.  Instead he chooses to talk around it, finding fault with one thing or another, all not relevant to the fundamental disagreement we have.

Bro. Genusa makes the statement that the Berean writings cannot be trusted.  We might ask, cannot be trusted for what?  If the answer is to be a 100% exact duplicate of the actual article, then this is true.  But that was never the point.  The point of these articles was to take the writings of the Pioneer brethren, and to highlight and emphasize their teaching on fellowship to "Christadelphians" who have had the true teachings of the Pioneers obscured, ridiculed, and denied by the leadership of Central.  To allow the Pioneers true teaching to occur in as clear a way as possible, much of the minutia of ecclesial history is omitted by Berean editors.  Names of individuals, and arguments between brethren now awaiting their Lord, are not relevant to us and distract from the discussion.  The debate itself is what is important.  What points were made by the Pioneers, and what points were raised against the pioneers; that is what the booklet shows.  What verses did the Pioneers chose to defend their doctrines and the practices that they thereby set forth, and what verses did the Psuedodelphians chose to defend their doctrine and what practices did they set forth in opposition to the Pioneers.  These are the reasons that the articles appeared as they did.  And throughout this exercise, we have shown that our arguments and methods, and choice of verses are identical to the pioneers, while bro. Genusa repeatedly has chosen the argument of the enemies of the truth.

In arguing with the "Clean Flesh" folks, we find a similar event taking place.  We claim that our teachings on the atonement are in harmony with the Pioneers, and the "Clean Flesh" folks claim their views are in harmony with the Pioneers..  We quote from the Pioneer works, and so do they.  It is an identical situation to this one, as bro. Genusa quotes from the Pioneers, and so do we.  They way we could always force the "Clean Flesh" folks to abandon  their position was this.  We would say lets examine the relevant verses.  If you agree with the writings of bre. Thomas and Roberts, shouldn't the way you use the verses be the same way they use those verses?  Then we would take them to Ezekiel 45:21-22, show them that the Pioneer brethren believed this was Christ in the Kingdom age, in the temple to be built at that time, offering a memorial sacrifice for his own "sins" meaning his nature.  The "Clean Flesh" folks denied that this was Christ, they denied the temple was the temple of the kingdom age, and they denied that Christ offered the Passover Memorial for his own "sins."  So it was easy to show that they did not interpret this verse, or any of the verses the same way as the Pioneer brethren did.  And the question they could never answer was that if they didn't innterpret the verses the same way, why should we expect they reached the same conclusion as the Pioneers?

That is what the booklet called "The Doctrine of Fellowship" was intended to do.  It was to show how bre. Roberts and Thomas used the Scriptural verses, and how they derived their arguments from those verses.  Then brethren could go to bro. George Booker's book, which quoted extensively from the Pioneers giving a false implication that his booklet exhibited the Pioneers teachings, and see for themselves that bro. Booker doesn't use a single verse the same way as bre. Thomas and Roberts did. 

And while the booklet was intended to deal with bro. Booker's book, it fits just as well today in dealing with the arguments advanced by bro. Genusa.  We can see bro. Genusa's use of the parable of the tares, and compare it to the writings of bre. Thomas and Roberts to see that there is no similarity between them.  We see the arguments advanced by bre. Thomas and Roberts and can easily see that they are the opposite arguments of those advanced now by bro. Genusa, and in the past by bre. Whitaker, Booker and Mansfield.  That was the reason the articles were edited in the manner they were. 

His first reason in asking you to distrust the Bereans is, "Remember, all these articles have bylines of "By Bro. John Thomas" or "By Bro. Robert Roberts". "  What did we actually find?  In the Berean Magazine articles, and in the booklet I compiled, called, "The Doctrine of Fellowship" there was one article misattributed by bro. G. A. Gibson, and copied by me..  And this same mistake was made, even in the lifetime of bro. Roberts, though clarified in a later magazine.  It was the article, "Heresy Hunting, a Duty." by J. J. Andrew, which was attributed to bro. Roberts.  But just to make sure there is no question concerning the doctrine taught in that article, I have compiled bro. Roberts writings on the verses bro. Andrew used, to show that they were both in harmony on this subject.  I will produce that in this thread, in due time.

Secondly, in asking you to distrust the Berean writings, bro. Genusa asks:  "Why then were words put into the mouths of these brethren and why were other words taken out?"  This technique shows the impotence of bro. Genusa's thesis.  If he, himself,  knew the answer, he would state it.  He wouldn't rely on questions to generate unstated inferences and innuendo, hoping that the reader can make an argument that he can't, or hoping the reader is careless enough to reach conclusions based upon innuendo.  I think this has to be crystal clear to everyone. 

And finally, he appeals to a "Socratic technique" to close his thoughts.  To refresh your memories, Socratic reasoning goes this way.

1).  The Oak is a big tree.

2)  The tree I am looking at is a big tree.

3).  Therefore, the tree I am looking at is an Oak.

In reality, the tree may be an Oak, but it may be another big tree as well.  And while this technique may work in a debate class, or with inexperienced readers, it is hardly worthy of our notice here..  But to humor him, (as this entire exercise has only been about humoring bro. Genusa)  Bro. Genusa reasons: 

1).  The Bereans changed some of the minutia surrounding articles written by Pioineers. 

2).  Bro. Walker changed significant sections and concepts in Elpis Israel. 

3).  The Bereans have no room to complain about bro. Walker's changes. 

But of course this logic is flawed.  Of course there is a difference between omitting irrelevant historical data, and changing whole concepts.  Of course there is a difference from reproducing an article in a magazine, with an aspect of that article is highlighted, rather than reproducing a book.

We now move on to what bro. Genusa believes the Bereans owe the brotherhood.  His first statement in this regard, contradicts his well established personal beliefs.  He writes: 
Quote:
"The Berean community -- because of the pervasive and longstanding misrepresentations of the pioneer works..." 

 
yet we have shown, and bro. Genusa has agreed that there is no misrepresentation of the Pioneer works, pervasive, longstanding, or otherwise.  Just to be clear, I will repeat bro. Genusa's own conclusions about my representations of the Pioneer works::  

"...Are there substantial text differences? Yes. Are there substantial doctrinal differences. Not that I've seen but I would not expect to see that."–Stephen Genusa.

Why then are we being asked to repay a debt which we have never incurred?  Not only haven't we incurred it, but bro. Genusa, for whatever reason, didn't expect to find a doctrinal difference between what I have quoted, and what the Pioneers wrote, when he began this nit picking ordeal.  So bro. Genusa is asking us to repay a debt that we didn't incur, and he didn't expect us to incur.    

His imbalance on this question becomes more absurd as he goes forward.  Not only does he wish for us to pay a debt we never incurred, but also reasons that said debt cannot be paid anyway.  As the only thing that can't be forgiven is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, we are at a loss to even begin to understand bro. Genusa's reasoning.

Leaving what is owed, bro. Genusa restates two of the above unproven charges, apparently hoping to be heard for his much speaking, and then concludes this way:

Separatist fellowships cannot justify their fellowship position from the pioneer works. Instead the pioneer works set forth ideas that contradict the separatists' Doctrine of Fellowship. The pioneer works also document historical practices that are at complete variance with separatist practices. At what point will separatists confess these mistakes which is an essential part of repentance? "To him that knoweth..."

Of course we can justify our position from the writings of the Pioneers.  That is why we quote them. The booklet, "The Doctrine of Fellowship" does this.  Bro. Genusa knows it does this.  He himself confesses that the articles in the booklet caused him to change fellowships.  He claims that bro. G. Mansfield showed him these articles were wrong.  Fine.  Then present us with bro. G. Mansfield's reasoning, because what bro. Genusa has offered to this point, is simply a rehash of the same identical arguments made against bre. Roberts and Thomas in their lifetimes, and frankly, wouldn't convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced.

 

We note now a new entry into this section by bro. Genusa which claims:

Bro. Phillips asked me to show "how the articles we [Bereans] have been using have been altered somehow". He did not place any conditions on what kind of alterations he wanted to see. Rather, he opened the door saying "altered somehow".

We would have thought the conditions obvious.  To serious brethren, an alteration is not a complaint over capitalization, or a complaint that only a portion of an article is used (providing it is not used in such a manner as to contradict the original article.)  An alteration would be where a precept, or a concept has been changed through the process of alteration.  That bro. Genusa could consider this as a reason to present an exercise in irrelevant minutia, shows he has left the realm of serious discussion, and progressed into desperation.

Perhaps bro. Phillips can explain why he spends so much time responding to and justifying "irrelevant minutia" if the points I've made are really so irrelevant?

That is probably a fair question.  The first and foremost reason was that I was asked to, by brethren I love and respect.  Second, I did not think it a bad thing, with my personal belief that the return of Christ is upon us, to make one more (and perhaps last) appeal to the brethren to consider their fellowship position.  And what better way to do this, than to go word by word through the articles explaining the true teaching on fellowship by the Pioneers.  Conflict and debate sharpens peoples understanding. 

Quote:
It's pretty obvious that when you make your "color of flag" the doctrine of fellowship, and then it is shown that your Fellowship has a fifty-plus year history of producing doctored quotes on the doctrine of fellowship — calling the quotes magazine "filler" doesn't ameliorate the serious nature of the changes — that brethren are going to take notice.
I have no doubt that it appears to bro. Genusa that we make the "color of flag" the doctrine of fellowship.  This is the point of disagreement we have between us, and for that reason, it is the point emphasized, and from his perspective, over emphasized.  I have experienced similar complaints on many issues.  I have been told by a critic that I only understand "the atonement, and precious little else."  I have been told similar things to Bible prophesy, the implication has been that I spend all my time on Bible Prophesy, and therefore have been unable to develop a spiritual character.  All we can do here, is thank the brethren for their care and concern for our weaknesses and blind spots, and move on.  The "color of our flag" is the Truth in its entirety.

Bro. Genusa points out that the charges he has made against us are serious.  They are.  But our examination has shown that those charges lack substance.  All the complaints about changes and alterations have dealt with minutia and format; none of them with substance.  And this is true by bro. Genusa's own confessions.  Is not the impotence of his argument born out when he says:

It still remains a serious question of what alterations have not been found. Roughly 50% of the material published in the Berean Doctrine of Fellowship book has not been checked.

It is clear from this statement, that he is telling us that though he hasn't found anything substantive yet, he is still looking, still hoping to find something upon which he can hang all these baseless and heretofore unsubstantiated charges which he has made.  I would think this shows that bro. Genusa has placed the cart before the horse.  He should find the alterations first, then make the charges.  It shouldn't have been the other way around.

And to further emphasize his inability to substantiate his charges concerning what he has written here, he finds he has to refers us to what he wrote elsewhere:  His reference here is to a booklet, and we have no specific charges to address there.  So again the reader is left in the strange position of seeing charges made, not substantiated, with the reader himself left to try and figure out what the Bereans have done wrong.

We note an interesting, yet unsubstantiated charge he has made, and it is in an area which we have challenged him before.  We would like to see him develop this idea.

 How the Bereans have failed to do the most basic of research: read the Intelligence columns of The Christadelphian for any number of years and note what a contradiction there is between Berean practices and early (say 1860-1898) Christadelphian practices.

Now, he does not do this in the booklet he refers us to.  I have done this, very specifically, in a portion of my answers to him, called "An Anatomy of a Division" found here. I have gone through the articles with the monthly intelligence, and have shown exactly how fellowship was handled during the Partial Inspiration division.  Bro. Genusa has never given us a reply.  I would think he could set down precisely what he is in reference to here.  I would think he could show us that the errorists ecclesias were considered either as "Christadelphians" or as "in fellowship" with the faithful ecclesias who associated themselves with the Christadelphian Magazine.  My reading of the intelligence reaches a different conclusion than bro. Genusa's.  At some point, I would think he should be able to spell out for us why he reaches the conclusions that he does.

 

 

 

broDLEE

Registered:
Posts: 26
Reply with quote  #113 
At this juncture, after several exceptional posts, including bro. Jim Phillips' detailed responses to the “redaction” or “editing” accusations and his latest summary, I feel like offering a few comments of my own. My comments of course would not satisfy bro. Genusa or any of his supporters and are not in response to any of his “questions” or “challenges”. I am of the opinion that enough has been offered in response to bro. Genusa's attacks and that the Bereans who have previously responded probably should expend their energy only to questions and queries posed by individuals who are genuinely interested in the Berean fellowship.

I feel that bro. Widding has hit the mark in post #79 (and touched upon again by bro. Jim in post #115) as to the reason why bro. Genusa continues his assault on the Bereans. He has reached out to many in the Advocate fellowship, myself included, to offer an alternative, namely Central. However, the alternative is as chaotic and replete with error as the Advocate fellowship is. What I discovered when I investigated Central with a viewpoint to leaving the unamended was that the move would not diminish my exposure to error. Bro. Genusa could not, at the time, recommend any bible schools or gatherings where I (and more importantly my children) would not be exposed to error. I am sure nothing has changed in this respect.

What is extremely puzzling is that in times past, bro Genusa was not antagonistic toward the Bereans. In July, 2005 he expressed interest in attending the Berean gathering at Hye, Texas. He never attended and a month later, subsequent to the death of bro. John Ullman, began what was at first a rather restrained assault upon the Bereans limited to conversations and emails and then later was expanded to his website. Of course the intensity of his efforts increased when bro. Jim Phillips took the time to respond to his attacks in detail. I never heard an explanation for this 180 degree turnabout in 2005. I was given the impression that bro.Genusa was upset because he felt that the Bereans were insensitive to the death of bro. Ullman. This puzzled me also as 1) no one in the Bereans were attacking bro. Ullman and 2) no one in the Bereans knew that bro. Ullman was dying. To be fair, I have never followed up with bro.Genusa for clarification of his turnaround.

Interested parties should now note, based upon bro. F. Higham's post #113, that bro. Genusa is now more interested in spin than truth. I have never known an ecclesia to allow any of its members to independently baptize new members. All have employed a process which protected both the ecclesia (and by extension the fellowship) and the baptismal candidate from the effects of an imcomplete knowledge of the foundation principles of the truth. To take this ecclesial news item and to attempt to turn it against the Bereans out of context is not advocating truth but spinning it into something it was not. I can only imagine that bro. Genusa is poring over his electronic Berean magazines, search engines blazing, endeavoring to find something to hang on the Bereans. After all, throw enough mud and some is bound to stick.

Bro. Genusa ultimately attacks the Bereans from withdrawing from errorists and excluding faithful brothers such as himself in the process. He acknowledges the responsibility to withdraw from error but hammers the Bereans for not fellowshipping those like himself, who oppose the error, but are still affiliated with the errorists. As has been written previously, the Berean position on this is scriptural. In practice, there would be chaos and confusion if fellowship lines were not clearly established. The scriptures use the analogy of error as being like cancer or gangrene. In order to preserve the body, the erroneous limb has to be cut off. It is no fault of the Bereans if faithful cells cling to the errorists and are cut off with them.

There is implicit in bro. Genusa's attacks as well as other detractors of the Bereans that Bereans are severe in their lifestyle and too exclusive regarding their relationship with other Christadelphians. Some of this is bound to come from misunderstandings as bro. F. Higham has pointed out in post #113. Bereans do interact with both Central and Advocate members. Bereans are just not in fellowship with them. The Bereans today remind me of the Novatianists of the fifth seal period of the apocalypse who would not fellowship those who had renounced the truth and then wanted to return to it. Bro. Thomas, clearly admiring the Novatianists, wrote that their adversaries [B]“reproached them for what they considered their excessive severity of discipline and exclusiveness.”[/I] These characteristics should be representative of all Christadelphians, not just Bereans. Sadly, they are not.
broBW

Registered:
Posts: 936
Reply with quote  #114 
Quote:
I am of the opinion that enough has been offered in response to bro. Genusa's attacks and that the Bereans who have previously responded probably should expend their energy only to questions and queries posed by individuals who are genuinely interested in the Berean fellowship. bro D Lee


Having given this some thought, I agree with bro Dale. Devoting so much ongoing energy in defending myself against anyone in pursuit of a non-existent problem becomes a less than productive use of the Lord's talents.

At this juncture, there is little to nothing that can be added. Shall I too become like the puppy chasing his own tail? I know what we believe. Moreover, brethren and sisters who have expressed interest in us know what we believe.  Those who are not interested in us? Well, I think brother Dale's inference addresses that. As to Berean brethren who wish to continue with this little donnybrook? This is perfectly fine. There's no episkopos telling anyone what to do.



STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #115 
Are there any plans to update the booklet "The Doctrine of Fellowship" with some of the material from the pioneers which has been discovered since the sterling work which bro Jim and bro Julio did in the 1980's?

As a younger brother in the fellowship, I would find it extremely useful to have an appendix to the booklet which may cover some of the typical questions you have encountered against the true pioneer view on this subject, and what proof from the pioneer writings you have used to correct false assumptions.   Having read posts/documents or discussed with yourself, bro Dale, bro Freddie and bro Jim, there appears to be a wealth of experience in these areas which others could benefit from.

As our future depends on the younger members of our community, should our Master remain away, I also believe we should do all we can to encourage them to read and consider these writings.  It would seem in the 1950's that a lot of the Bereans went back to Central on account of them not fully understanding the principles of Separation, either from the world or from error that inevitably arises from time to time.

Bro Steve





JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #116 
Hi bro. Steve,

I was considering this as a necessity when I began this project, but as I worked through it, I came to realize how completely the writings from those old Bereans had covered the subject matter.  Certainly there are articles which could be added, and expanded upon, but this exercise has shown that nothing really changes over times except the names of the combatants.  The arguments we resist today, all have been made in the past.  The collection of articles which occurred in the Berean of yesterday, are more than capable of meeting the arguments advanced today.

Some people don't like the argument, and choose to go a different direction.  But the problem is not that the argument is not clearly made.  Its like when your wife's uncle called me, and told me his ecclesia was going Central, and asked me to send him literature as to why he should not go.  I told him I didn't need to send him anything.  I asked him if he was aware that there was error in Central.  He said he knew that, and I knew he knew that.  That is why I told him he didn't need me.  He simply needed to make up his own mind that he would obey God and refrain from associations with the assemblies of the adversaries, or he would not.  If you know you are being disobedient, and simply choose to be disobedient, how can anything anyone says, influence you?

Having said that, I am open to the idea of a reprint.  But should I reprint the work I originally did, of which I could now do a much better job.  The first issue was a photo copy of old magazines, cut and pasted in place with hand numbered pages, and was the size of the Berean Magazine.  It was quite crude.  But with all the PDFs available, I could now print much clearer articles out of my copiers.  I personally lean in this direction.

But then there will be the complaint of edited and redacted articles.  I don't care about that complaint, but I wouldn't be doing this for me.  Would others care?  I am convinced that blandly printing all the historical minutia in those articles would detract and discourage the people who we want to read it, from reading it. 

One possible solution would be to print the full articles, and use color highlights to bring out the portions which bear directly on the doctrine of fellowship--that is, the portions of the articles which appeared in the Berean Magazine.  This would normally be impossible, due to costs, but I can do this cost effectively, since I own color copiers, and servicing them has no cost.  While it would take a regular print shop from a cost of 1.5 cents for black and white costs, to 9 cents for color, it takes me from 6 tenths of a cent for B&W copies to 8 tenths of a cent for color.  I think my original booklet was 28 duplexed pages, so my cost would only go from 35 cents per booklet to 45 cents per booklet.  (Before binding.)

Or, we could do the whole thing over from scratch.  I've been thinking about that, too.  This could be done subject by subject.  It could include (in no particular order)  
1).  the pioneers writings on what fellowship is
2)  the Tares,
3)  a collection of bre. Thomas' comments from Eureka,
4)  Heresy Hunting,
5)  going too far in fellowship,
to include secret sins, crotchets,
6)  marriage and divorce and fellowship, 
7)  The collection of works on the Partial Inspiration division
8)  A collection of works on the Doweite Division
9)  Pointing out just how many divisions existed in bro. Roberts day, where they called themselves Christadelphians
9)  Judge and Judge not
10)  Transference of Evil though Fellowship (the concord of Christ with Belial, or are we in fellowship with those in our fellowship)
11)  Withdrawal is not Excommunication
12)  Letters to First Century ecclesias do not justify fellowshipping error
a)  Apostolic ecclesias
b) Apocalyptic ecclesias
13)  the leavening effects of error
14)  a focus on all the individual verses relevant to fellowship and how they were used by the pioneer brethren.  We could use bro. Booker's book as the template to be answered, showing how his usage is contrary to the pioneer's usage of the same verses.
15)  How the pioneers dealt with reunion attempts (committees, associations, etc.)

Anyone with thoughts of what should be included, please add to the list.

Now setting the order, and not being repetitive is the problem.

I'd probably start with what fellowship is.  Then use my "Anatomy of a Division" dealing with the Partial Inspiration Division, and then work off of that.
broBW

Registered:
Posts: 936
Reply with quote  #117 
Yes, bro Jim:

The Apocalypse and the Obedience of Faith (RR 1872)

The Apocalypse and Fellowship (RR 1897)
JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #118 
Thank you bro. Bob.  Anything more? How about the Andrews division?

Jim
broBW

Registered:
Posts: 936
Reply with quote  #119 
I really like all of the material in the fellowship book. It is all relevant and needful. Would not wish to see anything deleted. With corrections thereto and the additions you propose it should make an even better work. If you have room for more on the JJA fellowship issue, this would be great as well inasmuch as it along with the Inspiration division are both good case histories as to how the brethren handled both the doctrine of fellowship and the problem of withdrawal. And so, this may end up being a rather lengthy work, but I think it will be worth the effort. If you need help of any kind with this, please let us know.
broBW

Registered:
Posts: 936
Reply with quote  #120 
Old Business

We note this morning that The Challenge to Bereans is still posted as if no one has responded. 169 days and counting.*

Quote:
I have asked the Bereans to answer four questions. If Berean claims are true, they should be able to easily answer these questions. I have created a special place to post the answers which I hope are forthcoming:

Please provide at a minimum answers for 1 through 3:

1) A single quote from the pioneer writings which indicates the pioneer brethren advocated and practiced Fellowship unions of mortal ecclesias.

2) A single quote which gives us the name of the mortal union which brother Thomas and brother Roberts established and broke bread with. 

3) A single quote that gives us the name of the Statement of Faith that their union of mortal ecclesias used as their basis of fellowship.

4) Any series of quotes that demonstrates the pioneer brethren made all the Clauses of the Berean Restatement a matter of fellowship.


NIV©I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.
NAS©Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.
ISV©Brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus the Messiah, I urge all of you to be in agreement and not to have divisions among you, so that you may be perfectly united in your understanding and opinions.
GWT©Brothers and sisters, I encourage all of you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to agree with each other and not to split into opposing groups. I want you to be united in your understanding and opinions.
KJVNow I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
AKJNow I beseech you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
ASVNow I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
BBENow I make request to you, my brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you will all say the same thing, and that there may be no divisions among you, so that you may be in complete agreement, in the same mind and in the same opinion.
DRBNow I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.
DBYNow I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all say the same thing, and that there be not among you divisions; but that ye be perfectly united in the same mind and in the same opinion.
ERVNow I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
WBSNow I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment.
WEYNow I entreat you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to cultivate a spirit of harmony--all of you--and that there be no divisions among you, but rather a perfect union through your having one mind and one judgement.
WEBNow I beg you, brothers, through the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
YLT And I call upon you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that the same thing ye may all say, and there may not be divisions among you, and ye may be perfected in the same mind, and in the same judgment,


Since the Apostle Paul speaks of unity or union as the ideal for brethren and sisters to work toward, The Challenge to Bereans must be using "union" in another way. Perhaps this is the sense in which the word is being applied:

UNION : a political unit constituting an organic whole formed usually from units which were previously governed separately (as England and Scotland in 1707) and which have surrendered or delegated their principal powers to the government of the whole or to a newly created government (as the United States in 1789) - Online Dictionary.


As previously stated, the questions cannot be answered because the challenger is attempting to define us as something we are not, and then asking us to defend it.

170 days and counting? ad nauseam.


*on genusa.com

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.