The Principle of Fellowship

Until we are converted we shall doubtless continue as we began and follow in the footsteps of the real "stalwarts" from the days of Dr. Thomas, who "dared to be a Daniel" and were not afraid to standalone if needs be, and to declare openly where they stood. If they made mistakes it is only what their critics do. The attitude of Bro. Wauchope is that the brethren have no right to refuse fellowship to any (who are acknowledged as Christadelphians) at the Lord's Table. He would therefore have us believe that Brethren Dr. Thomas, Robert Roberts, J. J. Andrew and Thomas Williams, with many others, like minded who, in their day, played a prominent part in the Truth's Warfare, were also in need of "conversion," but who, alas, died without it, and therefore, were not "qualified to strengthen the brethren."

Yet these brethren "embraced the promises and were persuaded of them." They heard the Glad Tidings and believed in God. They preached the Gospel and their sound went out in all the earth. Many through their ministry heard "the word of the truth of the gospel" and responded thereto. These men of God of former days, in preaching the gospel, set forth that in accepting the Truth as it is in Jesus we must also reject the traditions of men.

Did they miss the mark and preach falsehood when they taught us that if after having received the gospel we turned again to the beggarly elements of the world and, rejecting any principle of divine truth, preferred the traditions of men, we thereby marred or severed that fellowship with the Father and the Son which was assured us whilst we walked in the light? Perhaps they also "miserably failed" in their endeavors, yet the fact is outstanding that they accomplished much more in the interests of the Truth than has been accomplished by this new theology.

In the hope of confirming some of our readers we submit further evidence from former days. It may be that our witness will not be acknowledged by some as "a stalwart of the right kind." One thing however is true; he was not a man always sitting upon the fence, and whose speeches and actions were characterized with indefiniteness. He was a man who knew what he believed— he "believed and therefore he spake." He was acknowledged to be Bro. Roberts' right hand man in those troublous days, when the authenticity and reliability of the Scriptures were assailed. He addressed a lengthy epistle to Bro. Roberts in which he summarized some of the chief issues which arose in and developed from that controversy.

From the pen of J. J. Andrew we find some trenchant thoughts expressed [Sadly, the current Christadelphian Advocate does not agree with the honored tribute given by former editors such as Brethren Thomas Williams, John Owler and Albert Hall to Bro. Andrew, erroneously attributing to him a belief in the doctrine of substitution. All previous editors esteemed Bro. Andrew highly for his work's sake, complimenting him and reprinting many of his writings.] in that epistle—published in The Christadelphian, 1886 to which we invite your attention, as "proving to a demonstration" that the attitude towards "fellowship" in those days was not the "open table" for which an attempt is being made at this time to establish.

Brethren who fought the battles of the Truth in the days when the ecclesias were being established—and who accomplished more than leaders of today have to their credit—were not ignorant of the principles and requirements of the Gospel, nor did they need to be converted to the fellowship doctrine of an open table. They had "come out" and they felt that the Scriptures required that they should as consistently as possible maintain that "separateness" to which they were called—that if the doctrine of Christ which, by their belief and acceptance, gave them fellowship with the Father and the Son was denied by false teaching their duty was to maintain the Truth against the error and to "withdraw" from the errorists.

Following is a quotation from the Letter to the Editor, (March, 1886) [by J.J. Andrew]:

The fellowship aspect is summarily rejected by some because they do not find a passage which says in so many words, "Withdraw from those who disbelieve the inspiration of any part of the Scriptures, or who deny that inspiration involves infallibility." To commence with any such idea as this is a mistake, and it is in itself sufficient to disqualify the mind for considering the testimony available. If applied to other doctrines, it will be found that very few first principles of the truth can form part of the basis of fellowship.

The reason for this is obvious; the apostolic epistles originated in circumstances peculiar to the time in which they were written. For the most part, they treat of erroneous doctrines then propagated. Only occasionally, as in II Timothy 4:1-3, are undeveloped heresies specified. We are shown how the first century Christians were admonished to deal with false teachers, and this by implication is a command for us to do likewise. The principles on which they acted can be applied to the innumerable false doctrines which have been advocated during the last eighteen centuries.

Any theory or dogma which negatives a vital element of God's revealed Word is a ground for disfellowship. This, it will be said, leaves scope for discussion as to what is included in the word "vital". True, but hitherto, it has been possible to arrive at a tolerable amount of unanimity on this point; and there should be no insuperable difficulty in a continuance. Anomalous, indeed, will it be if those who are in harmony on the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the things of Christ’s name, cannot agree that the authorship of the book by which they have been enlightened is a vital element of fellowship.

"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them" (Rom. 16:17). Part of the "doctrine" or teaching "learned" by the Roman Christians was the divine authorship of the Old Testament Scriptures. They were taught that "unto the Jews were committed the oracles of God" (chap. 3:2); that to them pertained "the covenants, and the giving of the law . . . and the promises" (chap. 9:4); that "the law" was "holy" (chap. 7:12); that it contained "the form of knowledge and of the truth" (chap. 2:20), and that its "end" for "righteousness" was Christ (chap. 10:4); that the righteousness of God was in apostolic days, "witnessed by the law and the prophets" (chap. 3:21); that the writings of the "prophets" were "holy scriptures" (chap. 1:2); that the record of the faith of Abraham, in Genesis, was part of “the Scripture" (chap. 4:3); that the account of Pharaoh's stubbornness in Exodus was part of “the Scripture" (chap. 9:17); and that the narrative about Elias, in Kings, was also part of “the Scripture" (chap. 11:2); that "faith," by which man can alone "please God" (Heb. 11:6), cometh “by hearing the Word of God" (chap. 10:17); and that, notwithstanding Israelitish Apostasy, the preaching of “the Word of God" to Abraham's fleshly seed had not been altogether of "none effect" (chap. 9:6); that "the revelation of the mystery" which was" made manifest" in apostolic days, was "made known to all nations for the obedience of faith," "according to the commandment of the everlasting God," "by the Scriptures of the prophets" (chap. 16:26); and lastly, that "whatsoever things were written aforetime," in "the Scriptures" "were written for" the "learning" of Apostolic believers, that they "might have hope" through the "patience and comfort" derived from those "Scriptures" (chap. 15:4)

The advocacy of anything contrary to this teaching would cause a divided state in the Roman ecclesia, which, like other ecclesias, contained those who sowed to the "flesh" and those who sowed "to the spirit" (Gal. 6:8). What, for instance, would be the consequences if any were to teach that the Jews were no more custodians of the "oracles of God" than any other nation; that the law had no connection with Christ; that though both the law and the Scriptures were called "holy," the holiness of the Scriptures was much inferior to the holiness of the law; that the narratives of Abraham, Pharaoh and Elijah were not a part of "the word of God;" that the offer of salvation was not made to Israel under the law; that "the oracles of God" were only the two tables of stone given to Moses; that the "holy Scriptures" were not identical with "the Word of God;" that faith comes by hearing that which is partly God's word and partly man's; that some of the things written in "the Scriptures" under Spirit-guidance were erroneous; or that the portion of the ecclesia which gave heed to "the Spirit of Truth" that "the word of God" was in some parts written without divine control? Those who had been trained up in the teaching of the apostles (I John 4:6) would oppose these elements of "the spirit of error," and if unable to change the minds of the advocates thereof, they would find it necessary to withdraw or ask the teachers of the error to do so that they might peaceably pursue the object for which they had been constituted "saints” (chap. 1:7). And in so doing they would but obey the apostolic command to "avoid them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine they had learned."

The inspired statement in Romans 15:4, when combined with II Timothy 3:15-16, affirms that "Whatsoever things were written aforetime in the Holy Scriptures were written by inspiration of God for our learning, that we might through them be made wise unto salvation, and receive instruction in all things necessary for righteousness." To teach that some parts of the Old Testament Scriptures were not given by inspiration is subversive of this truth; it is "contrary to the doctrine which" the early Christians "learned" from the apostles; it causes a divided state of mind concerning a matter on which there ought to be unity; and it introduces an "offence" or stumbling-block in a pathway which requires to be made "straight" or "even" (Heb. 12:13, margin). It, therefore, imposes upon us the obligation to "avoid them" who so teach.

Albert Hall

The Christadelphian Advocate. September-October 1930, pgs 264-266.

Reprinted in The Sanctuary-Keeper. June 1990, pgs. 233-236.