Doctrines with Power
February 22, 2010
Dear Friends,
As we peruse the doctrines that are considered important among us, we can put them into two distinct categories: doctrinal and moral. The former are mostly of an intellectual nature such as “There is one God” or “There will a Kingdom of God on earth.” These doctrines are important pieces to the puzzle of how we view the “big picture” of God’s plan and have profound effects on other Bible teachings. The latter are mostly behavioral commandments that list things we should do such as “Pray for them that despitefully use you” or things that we shouldn’t do such as “Refrain utterly from adultery, fornication, uncleanness, drunkenness.”
I would like to suggest another category of doctrines that have a profound impact upon the way we think and feel. Because these teachings have such a profound impact upon the way we think and feel, they are very important. If we were asked what a believer “looked like”, I would think the answer would not be dissimilar when Moses “saw” God. When Moses “saw” God, he saw these characteristics:
The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation. (Ex. 34:6-7 NIV)
Similarly, when people see us they are supposed to see the Fruit of the Spirit.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. (Gal. 5:22-23 NIV)
It stands to reason then that any Bible teaching which positively or negatively impacts upon our capacity to show love, live joyously, peacefully and patiently and so forth is very important. These are not primarily intellectual in nature, though they may be intellectually or expositionally derived. They are not primarily behavioral either although they will have a significant upon our behavior. They are more specifically characteristics which impact our behavior. They are, for lack of a better term, organically who we are. Love pours forth from us not because we are told to demonstrate loving behavior, but because we have love in our hearts. We are kind because our world view, as shaped by all of these underlying beliefs, won’t really allow us to respond in any other fashion.
I like to think of these third class teachings as “doctrines with power.” They have the power to transform our hearts and therefore our lives so that we can become the living embodiment of the fruit of the Spirit. Jesus touched on this very idea in the negative when he said “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.” (Matt. 15:19 NIV) We can take this same idea in the positive. “For out of the heart come love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.”
Before we delve into some of these doctrines, let me be crystal clear what I am not saying. Our doctrinal and behavioral propositions have been codified into a Statement of Faith which has been misused and abused since inception. All too often we have transformed these truths from a living proclamation of faith and victorious living to a dead contract of legal words to promote our own righteousness and bully those who might express themselves differently. I am not in any way, shape or form suggesting these propositions be added to the Statement of Faith. If we can live these propositions by putting them in our heart, having them on a piece of paper becomes entirely superfluous anyway. “By their fruits shall ye know them,” not by their document.
Lord willing, we will start looking at these teachings next week.
Have a great week,
Comments
Wow! Where do you come up with these ideas? Our “documents”, including our Bible, represents our faith and our beliefs. We have them written down so that all can see where we stand with our beliefs.
And you say that these documents represent “dead contract of legal words to promote our own righteousness and bully those who might express themselves differently”? Our Statement of Faith represents our beliefs based on scripture. I think it would be appropriate to not try to invent a new religion based on thoughts for a week.
Steve,
I come up with my ideas straight from the Bible not from what some non-inspired author wrote or from some tradition. Just the Bible.
If you would like to make a BIBLICAL argument for a Statement of Faith and the way we use it, I’d love to see it. Let’s face it, the way we use the Statement of Faith is an invention of the Council of Nicea (of Trinity fame). Never before was a extra-Biblical document used as THE basis of fellowship to EXCLUDE true brethren. Apostasy 101. I am not against writing down what we believe, just using it the way we use it. The way we use it is the legacy from Nicea.
I would agree that using a Thought for the Week to invent a new religion is inappropriate if that is what I am doing. What’s your excuse for using Constantine’s Nicean invention in the same way he did?
Kyle,
Our Statement of Faith CORRECTS ideas that was promoted by the very councils to which you refer. If these “councils” had not invented and/or endorsed non-Biblical ideas, such as the trinity in your example, we wouldn’t need to provide our Statement of Faith as clarification of what the Bible really teaches. How hard is this concept to understand?
If I am speaking to a protestant about the truth, the Statement of Faith provides clear beliefs with scriptural references as a “tool”. This aids in speaking to the very people that are most affected by these councils.
Our Statement of Faith is not used to “exclude” anyone. Rather, it is used to bring brethren of like precious faith together.
I feel that you have blown this idea way out of proportion. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for comparing a booklet that represents our precious faith with the ideas from leaders of the apostacy.
Steve,
I asked you to make a BIBLICAL case. Isn’t this what we are all about…doing things and thinking things that come from the word of God? Isn’t that what sets us apart from the apostacy…not a SoF, but using the Word as our ONLY guide? I can back up everything I have said with the Bible. How about you? Until you make a Biblical case, you are the one that should be ashamed.
Kyle,
There is nothing “loving” or “kind” about what you have been doing to the Truth over the past few years with your steady stream of false beliefs and doctrinal confusion. “Love rejoiceth in the Truth”, and I say the following not for the purpose of insult or to question your sincerity – but Truth is something that is seriously lacking from much of your teachings. Such specifics have been dealt with before (and will continue to be countered), so no need to list them here at this time as you have refused their posting in the past. The “fruits of the spirit”, that you make mention of, as vital to our salvation as they are, can have no impact or power to fully manifest and glorify our Heavenly Father in the absence of Truth – elements of which you continue to reject. Therefore, you really aren’t in a position to question the use of a SOF in the first place.
If one is trying to promote or find allowance for teachings that are opposed to long held Christadelphian beliefs, or to promote open fellowship among various fellowships under the Christadelphian name or even the CGAF – then I understand perfectly the logic behind trying to call into question the use of a Statement of Faith as a Basis of Fellowship. But since a SOF has been a part of the Christadelphian mode of operation since the beginnings of this modern day revival of Apostolic Truth – to clearly and simply demonstrate a distinction between us and the confusion of “Christianity” so called, and to honestly demonstrate a basis of our fellowship with one another – and since you are opposed to this along with several fundamental Christadelphian doctrines and long held practices; instead of creating further strife and confusion might it be best for you to leave the Christadelphians alone and find another name that better reflects the beliefs and practices of you and your followers?
As an added consideration, the creed that resulted from the “Council of Nicea” was in fact a departure from the Truth, though the Truth regarding the nature of Christ and the relationship between the Father and Son had already been in a corrupted state for years on both sides of the debate. The fact that “true brethren” were excluded was in fact a good thing, and they would have long before excluded themselves – for there could be no fellowship between “true brethren” and those who followed after the Universal (Catholic) apostasy. Now, I know that what you are getting at in all of this is the various fellowship barriers within Christadelphia – but again, there are serious and fundamental doctrinal differences that do exist, no matter how much effort there may be to gloss over or ignore them.
Hello Kyle,
I find myself agreeing 100 percent with Steve in this matter. I have many friends in Central but I am unwilling to forego our position on the atonement as laid out in the BUSF for social reasons. The abandonment of our vital ‘statement of faith’ is not just one step closer to apostacy – it is apostacy.
I realize that many brothers and sisters have family ties with members of Central and that this is a major factor in pressing for ‘reunion’. I can symphatize with their dilemna but Truth is Truth and we have been warned by Christ himself that it will divide families and cause those who cling to it to be despised in this world.
You can sugar-coat the division as much as possible but it cannot be ignored or glossed over – at least not while the remnant of those who hold the BUSF dear are still breathing.
yours in the Hope of Israel,
Sis. Faith Erickson-Gini
Aaron,
I know you didn’t intend your post to be funny, but I think if you think about it, it really is funny. When you write to me “instead of creating further strife and confusion might it be best for you to leave the Christadelphians alone and find another name that better reflects the beliefs and practices of you and your followers?”, surely you can see the humor in that considering your own circumstances. For those who have no idea who you are, let’s review. You are in a small ecclesia with your family that consists of about 8 people. You are not in fellowship with 99.9% of Christadelphia by your own choice because the rest of us are not pure enough. You edit the revived Sanctuary Keeper magazine of JJ Andrew fame so you can vent your extreme views to a small readership. You’ve already created your own additions to the Statement of Faith and published them. Your “fellowship” includes, by my estimate, about 200-300 people tops.
Now, in light of your circumstances, isn’t your suggestion that I leave the rest of Christadelphia alone as if they look more like you than me a little bit humorous? I seriously can’t think of anyone that is less representative of the vast majority of Christadelphians than yourself.
So basically, Aaron, you want me to do what you have already done. May I suggest that you take your own medicine? All you need is the name change.
Kyle,
You speak of using the Bible as our “only” guide. Ultimately, this is true. But have you ever read a book on a topic about the truth? Have you ever taken notes from your Bible and used them to study or present your study to others? Have you ever used a concordance? Have you ever had to read another author’s thoughts on a topic such as prophesy, because your (and my) finite mind cannot comprehend God’s infinite wisdom? Have you ever written a book and used sources other than the Bible to prove your point?
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Sometimes, we need help in guiding us in what the Bible teaches. We have books, notes, lectures and yes, our Statement of Faith.
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth on this topic.
Also, your text about Bro. Aaron, his ecclesia, his fellowship practices, and the Santuary Keeper (including the readers and by default, the authors that contribute to the magazine) is so far out of line, I cannot comprehend it. He spent time telling you what he and others (including me) believe where you are in error, and you ignore addressing any of his concerns and provide a humor(less) jab at his relationship with fellow believers.
I hope your “followers” can see through your rhetoric. As a watchman for the one truth, I will not stand by and let people like you, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, promote ideas that are a departure from the truth.
Strike three, Steve.
I have asked you three times to give a Biblical argument for your original post. Three times you have come back with your personal opinion. This is what we criticize in the churches of the world when tradition and personal opinion trump “thus saith the Lord.” Oh well, I give up.
Here are a couple of Bible verses for your consideration.
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
Ac 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
By the way, your quotation of 2 Tim. 2:15 from the King James is a bad translation. Doesn’t mean “study” in the Greek.
I am not against Statements of Faith (when used correctly), books and study helps. You are not following my argument. My argument is simple. The basis for everything spiritual is the word of God, not anything else. Anything that supplants the word of God — no matter how true it is in and of itself — becomes a source of evil. The “thing” is not evil in itself, but the way we use it. Jesus said it best “Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.”
On my comments on Aaron Thomas, it seems quite reasonable to me to make the point that I made. He suggests by inference that he is among the mainstream in Christadelphia. I should change my name and start my own church to leave all of the orthodox Christadelphians like him alone. It seems to me that the only reasonable response to such a ridiculous assertion is to point out that Aaron is way, way, way out on the Christadelphian Bell Curve. I simply stated the facts as I understand them. If I have misstated anything in my representation of him, I am willing to be corrected. You refer to my comments about his relationship with “fellow believers” but I am pretty sure that Aaron would not see them as such. His circle of fellowship is very small. He said so himself in his post.
Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. (Eph. 5:11 NIV)
There are many non-denominational churches out there that state that they have no doctrine. “Just come as you are and love everybody.” Our statement of faith defines our doctrine and supports it with MANY scriptures. I would rather belong to a small group that holds to the Truth, than to belong to a large, world-wide body that has watered down the Truth to the point that it will accept just about anyone. Jesus questioned whether he would find the faith when he returns. I understand what he was asking now. The Truth is evolving away from the fundamentals that our founding brothers had searched out. As from me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
Bobby,
I don’t know what it is about the subtlety of this subject that you and your cohorts can’t seem to grasp, but let me try yet again to state this in simple language. The issue is not “just come as you are” or believe whatever you want to believe. Far from it! It is about believing the right things for the right reasons and on the right basis.
Let’s take a couple of exaggerated examples to demonstrate what I mean.
Example #1: You have a man who believes the BUSF line by line. Just to make you more comfortable, let’s say he adopts Aaron’s or Orlando’s add-on clauses too without reservation. Not only that, he is adamant — almost militant — in his adherence to those principles in the BUSF and speaks out against any who would dare challenge one jot or tittle. He didn’t derive these conclusions from personal Bible study, but because he was taught them from a child and from reading things like the Sanctuary Keeper. He can’t really defend his faith except for quoting someone else or the SoF. His fellowship practices are strictly and solely on the basis of the SoF.
Example #2: You have a man who, through diligent personal Bible study, has reached conclusions identical to the majority Christadelphians. He has gone to the trouble of writing his own SoF – not as a basis of fellowship, but as the name indicates — a statement of personal belief. After he is baptized and becomes part of his local ecclesia in Tanzania, he breaks bread with all those he believes to be brethren in Christ which extends to all Christadelphians. He can expertly defend his faith with Bible passage after Bible passage and refute those who oppose the truth. His passion for the truth is evident in all of his good works and preaching. Otherwise, he is a loving, humble and generous brother in Christ who is respected for his faith far and wide.
Using this example, Bobby, let me submit to you the problem. You would be more comfortable with the first person and I am more comfortable with the second. I believe that God wants us to form our beliefs based on a conviction in the Scripture, not on what someone told us to believe and not on using a man-made document as a shorthand for actual faith. I admit that my example was a bit exaggerated in my favor, but hopefully is make the point so we won’t have these silly accusations that I am preaching “do whatever feels good.” I am promoting substance over appearance. I know that this is not what you have been raised on, but if you think about it and compare what I have said the Biblical model, I think you will see that what I am saying is simply a repeat of the message of the Bible from cover to cover.
Kyle,
Since I live abroad, I have actual (and not theoretical) experience with meeting people supposedly taught the Truth – in this case by (name deleted at Kyle’s request). I maintained some contact with a Russian speaking couple who are visited annually by Central’s missionaries from the UK. At one point I visited the couple with a Russian speaking friend who was able to translate and I then found out that the so-called ‘sister’ believes in the pre-existence of Christ and she emphasied to us twice that (name deleted at Kyle’s request) was well-aware of her belief when she was baptised. She also professed to reading a copy of the Koran which she thought had alot of relevance to her beliefs.
Needless to say, I have not maintained contact with this lady but Central still does (due to the language barrier they are not able to really communicate with her but come by to break bread anyway).
I have no problem breaking bread with anyone who is baptised and fellowships on the basis of understanding and accepting the Birmingham Unamended Statement of Faith. Anyone who knows and accepts the BUSF, whether he lives in Tanzania or Joplin, Missouri, understands and accepts the same beliefs that I do. Unfortunately, it is doubtful that the theoretical fellow from Tanzania has even heard of the BUSF, since Central missionaries do not advertise the fact that the BUSF even exists or teach its principles.
As you probably realize by now, there are a small number of people who are not intimadated by belonging to a minority. Throughout history, Yahweh has maintained a core of believers, nearly always a ‘minority’ who refuse to bend knee to Baal or any other concept that opposes his Truth.
Your efforts and other attempts at reunion with Central will ultimately lead you to be swallowed up by Central and from what I tell, you can believe virtually anything you want there as long as you speak a foreign language, live in a non-English speaking country and have never heard of the BUSF.
PS – anyone who wishes to know the name deleted in this post is welcome to contact me personally and I will supply it.
Faith,
The situation you describe of the lady believing in all sorts of nonsense is sadly one that is oft repeated. I would tell you that this is not theoretical for me. I am actually one of those guys who goes around trying to fix those problems.
The interesting thing is that the brethren in Central – especially those who share your views on the importance of the Statement of Faith – would think that they had this thing covered with the BASF. I know you are aware that the BASF has the same verbiage to address the points you brought up (preexistence and Koran). Your comment actually beautifully addresses my point exactly. Brethren (or more specifically shepherds) address false doctrine, not documents. If you leave it to the documents to do the job, all is lost. They are just dead pieces of paper. It is brethren who know their Bibles who are willing to actually do work that follow closely a living Christ that make the difference.
Faith, when you say “I have no problem breaking bread with anyone who is baptised and fellowships on the basis of understanding and accepting the Birmingham Unamended Statement of Faith”, do you realize that you have just unintentionally rewritten a good portion of the Bible?
At the end of the book of Revelation, there is a passage which, if we fail to follow, offers dire consequences. It says,
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (Rev. 22:18-19 NIV)
We have to ask ourselves “Is this talking about the book of Revelation or the whole Bible?” May I suggest to you that in practical terms, it doesn’t matter? If this only refers to the book of Revelation, can we imagine a circumstance where it would not also apply to the entire Bible? Would God say, in effect, “Don’t add to the book of Revelation, but do anything you want to the rest of the Bible?” Of course not. Furthermore, we know God clearly said something very clearly about adding or taking away from His commandments to Israel (Deut 4:2). Therefore let’s assume that this passage applies either directly or by inference to the whole Bible.
With that said, let’s ask another important question. How far do we take this? For example, which is the more egregious violation of the principle of Revelation 22:18-19?
I would suggest that the first option is not a violation of Revelation. Both renditions of the verse are from reputable Bible versions – the former from the King James and the latter from the New International Version. In both cases, the translators were trying to be faithful to the intent of the Apostle Paul.
The second option, although not literally changing the text of the Bible, seems to be the far greater violation of the principle of the Revelation. In practice, it changes the Divine intent. These “parenthetical” changes in practice nullify verses by adding to them. For example, Matthew 28:19 now becomes “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing (or sprinkling) them.” Peter’s words of Acts 2:38 transform to “Repent, and be baptized (or sprinkled) every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.”
Why do we mention “parenthetical” changes to the Bible? We mention this for the simple reason that I believe our Document-based Fellowship practices have made substantial “parenthetical” changes to the Bible. If this is the case, we may very well find ourselves the recipients of the curses found in Revelation; namely that “God will add to him the plagues described in this book” and “God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city.” (Rev. 22:18-19 NIV) This is very serious!
So let me share with you some of the “parenthetical” fellowship practices I have come across or experienced.
• Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers (or brethren with a different Statement of Faith): for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness (or possible association with questionable doctrine)? and what communion hath light with darkness (or with a dimmer shade of light)? (2Co 6:14) • If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness (or have a differing Statement of Faith), we lie, and do not the truth: but if we walk in the light (and have the right Statement of Faith), as he is in the light (and has the right Statement of Faith), we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. (1Jo 1:6-7) • Repent, and be baptized (into the correct schism of the One Body) every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 2:38) • For we being many are one (or more) bread (breads), and one (or more) body (bodies): for we are all partakers of that one (or more) bread (breads). (1Co 10:17) • For as the body is one (or two or three or…). (1Co 12:12)
We could offer many more examples, but I think you get the picture. We nullify the commandments of God with our traditions.
So what do you think the Lord would have us do? Would He have us continue to change his Scriptures in our practice or change our practice to fit His Scriptures?
You also wrote “As you probably realize by now, there are a small number of people who are not intimadated by belonging to a minority. Throughout history, Yahweh has maintained a core of believers, nearly always a ‘minority’ who refuse to bend knee to Baal or any other concept that opposes his Truth.” I couldn’t agree with you more. As you probably have noticed, sometimes I say things that a lot of people don’t agree with. I say them because I think they need to be said. I say them because I could care less what people think of me. I only care what God and Jesus think of me. I say these things because I see what we are becoming as a body. We are becoming too lazy. We don’t know our Bibles well enough. We depend too much on extra-Biblical writings. We worry about keeping our traditions versus keeping God’s word. We want to be expert at debate rather than exposition. We want to talk rather than do. We don’t preach, love or serve. Sometimes I get the Elijah Syndrome and think that I am the only one trying to make a difference. This is self-righteous and wrong. It’s doesn’t last long because there are too many examples in my face telling me that I am the one that needs to step up my game. There are a lot of people trying to make a difference like my friends Cam and Kim Beeler in South Africa or Marilyn Seagoe in San Francisco with her prison ministry. There is my friends in the Hansworth UK ecclesia that go into the poor neighborhoods of Birmingham on Sunday morning and gathering kids for Sunday school. There is Linda Reding who has left all, moved to Jamaica and works with unfortunate children day and night on the island. These brethren put me to shame. They truly are doers of the Word and not hearers only.
Finally, you wrote “Your efforts and other attempts at reunion with Central will ultimately lead you to be swallowed up by Central and from what I tell, you can believe virtually anything you want there as long as you speak a foreign language, live in a non-English speaking country and have never heard of the BUSF.” First, I think what you have said about Central is totally untrue. When you get 80,000 people, there are going to be some people that have issues – serious issues. Rather than cast stones at them, help them. I think they are my brethren so for me there is no distinction. It’s like making a distinction between a foot, a hand or an eye. There are differences, but one Body. You may be surprised to find that the very sentiments you have expressed are the very same ones expressed in Central about the Unamended. I think they are equally wrong in their assessment too. Interesting isn’t it that the one thing that you and they can agree on is how unacceptable the other side is based mainly on a document.
Faith and Kyle, I find it ironic that some of the above arguments used to discourage unity are the very same ones used by a minority in the Central community who also promote division.
I believe the premise behind statements like this is wrong. Aren’t we all brothers and sisters in Christ? The reality is that we are all “family”. It seems to me that the outliers on both sides want to deny the fact that we recognize each other’s baptisms and are truly, brethren in Christ. It’s not like we’re talking about unity with those who publicly malign the word of God, or deny that Jesus came in the flesh. Nobody’s talking about “open fellowship” with followers of Islam or with Trinitarians, etc. When Jesus prayed right before he was crucified, he repeatedly asked that we would be one as he and his Father were one.
Sister Faith, I would propose that it is wrong to suggest the motive in pressing for reunion is merely sympathy toward blood relatives. Instead, I would suggest that it is the desire to honor Christ’s wishes. Perhaps it is those who have blood relatives caught in the division who know firsthand that the “other side” aren’t the demons they are sometimes portrayed to be. Nobody is talking about having a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons.
The comments about requiring the “B_SF only” can also be found by some on both sides of the division. However, our Christadelphian community came out from the churches that had been led astray by jurisdictional diocese and their requirement to submit to creeds, clergy and church councils. As a result, the idea of establishing “The” Christadelphian Statement of Faith has consistently been opposed. It is not uncommon for ecclesias to have their own unique statements of faith. If the first principles of the One Faith as revealed in Scripture are summarized in an ecclesia’s statement of faith, how can we require anything else? Why should we deny fellowship to one who believes the One Faith, but who is a member of an ecclesia that has used different words to express the same truth?
The situation that Sister Faith describes in Russia is sad, but highlights the trouble in relying on a statement of faith to “keep the truth pure”. A document can do nothing by itself. The situation also highlights the responsibilities individual ecclesias have in preventing false doctrine from being introduced to our members. This is accomplished by giving our speaking platforms only to approved brothers, and by correcting, rebuking and censoring any who teach our members badly. If I’m not mistaken, all the Bible passages about withdrawing from unworthy brethren were written about teachers, not the naïve who have been deceived by smooth talk and flattery. This then leaves the question about what to do with our brothers and sisters who have been misled. I applaud the missionaries who continue to meet with this couple. Rather than building walls and running away from people like this Russian couple, perhaps we should all follow the example of the true shepherd and not the hireling.
Mr. Tucker, I realize that discussions with narcisistic personalities accomplish nothing but reinforcing their misdirected convictions. Your teachings are not from the Bible but from your own narcistic impressions and ambitions. There is no Bible truth in what you arrogantly proclaim to your small group of loyal followers and those you see (in your immaturity) as aggressive to yourself.
Why is it that you of all people since Bro Thomas, have now discovered a new grain of truth? We have the Truth and know God’s plan as revealed to us by the prophets and people of God and so when we examine your writings and communications over the past few years we see revealed that you exploit weakness in people or seek to create it in people. In general narcissists are charming, making their associates feel like they are above everyone else and make people dependent on your leadership. We’ve seen that to criticize you turns on your excesses of extreme selfishness and your grandiose view of your own talents and and craving for admiration. Don’t you feel special or unique and can only be truly understood by the elite of a group or possess a sense of entitlement to the ultimate of all that you are seeking. Do you feel envious of competition of others who disagree with what you see as the ultimate universal truth of any subject? Do you manifest arrogant, haughty, behaviours or attitudes when others oppose you?
This has gone past the desire to present new ideas in the truth or just to expound the truth to others. I’m a fourth generation Christadelphian, I mention this for reference, and I have never read, heard or otherwise seen or discussed what you write as Bible inspired teaching. Many older brothers are completely confused by your tripe. Older brothers who have heard the truth taught all their lives without the trinity and other lies from the bed of Jezebel are confused because they thought all this was biblicaly expressed as a warning of the last days, not the pure Truth as taught by the prophets and apostles carried on by the pioneers. This fits the narcissistic profile; you consider them a nuicance and hindrance to your grand schemes.
I am not your brother in Christ and you would be surprised at the truth of the number of that small group that opposes your teaching. Your narcissism prevents you from even considering this fact. And that fact is bountifully evident in the one statement claiming to have the higher number of followers.
Please leave us alone and go fulfill your abject destiny. This criticism eats at your personality but your craving for admiration will fade after a tirade soon to be published by you on this site.
Ronnie Sanders
I do not want a response to this. It will only prove what I see in you.
One more statement. I have written other ecclesias and brethren in the past who seem to just need a note of encouragement or whatever. After doing that I was condemned for not minding my own business stung like darts of fire. So after this I’m minding my own business. RS
To all those who consider what I write highly offensive false doctrine, I have one suggestion –unsubscribe from the Thought for the Week. The Thought for the Week is ONLY sent to those who request it. If you have subscribed to it, don’t be shocked and offended when it shows up in your inbox each week. If other people are forwarding it to you and you are offended, tell them to stop forwarding it. If this simple suggestion doesn’t make sense to you, I’m afraid I am unable to help you.
Kyle,
I don’t need to unsubscribe to your blog because I am not a subscriber. I was alerted to your comments about the BUSF by concerned brethren.
The very length of your reply is a ready indication that I have hit a number of panic buttons and that is a good thing. The fact that you would weigh me, one isolated woman who defines her beliefs according to the BUSF, on a scale with the entire Central leadership is rather amazing.
This just highlights the fact that the reunion efforts in North America are directed mainly towards bringing about a mass defection from the BUSF and are not directed towards Central, whose leadership is quite unwillingly to put up with the kind of fuzzy theology that you and other reunion advocates promote. Since their main selling point is to scare potential ‘believers’ into baptism by threatening them with the judgement seat (of Christ himself no less!), they are not going to give up their SOF easily and as you yourself point out, they have large numbers of members on their side. No wonder that you don’t bother confronting them. They are a large, well-funded organization. People like Aaron and Steve and myself are few in number and easy to criticize, an easy target, right Kyle?
So continue to praise their well-funded missionary efforts to needy foreign countries and prisons among populations that are difficult to access, making it difficult to tell what their converts really believe. Low accountablity, fuzzy doctrines, do I see a pattern here? Do you?
By the way, the couple in question live here in Israel and not in Russia. I do not maintain contact with them for the same reason that I do not meet with or bother trying to convince the growing number numbers of Messianic Jews here in my own area. Like you, they prefer a kind of fuzzy theology, particularly when confronted with the doctrine of the Trinity. My impression is that they aren’t quite ‘sold’ on the Trinity, but they are very much sold on their contacts with the apostate Christian community abroad who funds and support them. Like Esau, these Jews have sold their birthright for something as worthless as a pot of beans. Why would I have anything to do with them?
I prefer not to continue contributing to this blog any longer. I need to get on with my Bible readings. I do want to thank a number of brothers who took the time to write and express their support for my position in this matter. Yahweh bless them.
I am not a subscriber but these latest posts are driving me to express my reactions to your dangerous dialogue. This is the first time I’ve actually been here and I don’t intend to be back.
BTW, I have, by the word of at least one brother in Texas, with great authority, that your writings are anathama to a wide majority in Texas.
I am sure that this back and forth has mystified quite a few people who are not familiar with the situation here in North America. For their sake, let me review quickly what this is all about.
Historical Context In the days just prior to the split between Amended and Unamended of 1899, there were three men and three magazines. Thomas Williams edited the Christadelphian Advocate, Robert Roberts edited The Christadelphian and J. J. Andrew edited The Sanctuary Keeper. Although Robert Roberts never formally withdrew from Thomas Williams, he did refuse to meet with Thomas Williams on his visit to the US in 1896. J. J. Andrew withdrew his fellowship from Thomas Williams and went so far as to be re-immersed in October 1900. So, we had in essence, three men, three magazines and three fellowships. The Thomas William’s group became the Unamended or Advocate fellowship. The Robert Roberts’ group became the Central fellowship (named for the Central Ecclesia in Birmingham, England) or Amended. The adherents to the doctrines of J. J. Andrew, by default of not adopting the amendment, also became Unamended. The Sanctuary Keeper group, although withdrawing from both the Amended and the Unamended, never fully developed and hence became somewhat of a satellite of the Unamended. The Sanctuary Keeper magazine died with JJ Andrew but was briefly revived in the 1980s by Jim Staunton and again in the 2000s by Aaron Thomas.
What Happened Since
Unamended (Advocate) – Thomas Williams
• Responsibility Issue: Will raise those in covenant by baptism. God can raise those out of covenant. • Fellowship Practice: Body of Christ-based fellowship. Majority accept both Amended and Unamended in fellowship. • Size: Less than 2,000 members in US and Canada
Amended (Christadelphian magazine) – Robert Roberts
• Responsibility Issue: God will raise those who have knowledge of the Gospel.
• Fellowship Practice: Body of Christ-based fellowship. Most ecclesias accept Unamended outside of North America. Most ecclesias in North America will not accept Unamended (Document-based fellowship). • Size: Estimates vary but around 80,000
Andrewites – (Sanctuary Keeper) J. J. Andrew • Responsibility Issue: God will ONLY raise those who have made a covenant in baptism. God cannot raise those outside of covenant. • Fellowship Practice: Will not accept Amended and many will not accept Advocate Unamended in fellowship. Almost 100% document-based fellowship. • Size: 200-300 in US only (vast majority in southern US)
What is important for Central brethren to realize is that there are two fairly distinct groups of Unamended Christadelphians who didn’t align with Central for two entirely different reasons. One group, the Andrewites, thought Robert Roberts was teaching false doctrine. The Thomas William’s group didn’t think the correct solution was to amend the Statement of Faith and force what was once an open question on everyone as a first principle. The Unamended are not one autonomous group and never have been. Fellowship between the Andrewites and the rest of the Unamended has always been tenuous at best.
Today The Andrewites, although differing on many key doctrinal points, are very similar to the Logos movement of Australia. They tend to be “Thomasites.” There is a huge emphasis on pioneer writings although they would add Thomas Williams and JJ Andrew to their list of pioneers. There is a very conservative approach to traditions. They would eschew worldly holidays like Christmas. They would more than likely still use the 1932 Christadelphian Hymnbook. They tend to believe that the King James Version is the only correct Bible translation.
More recently, they have been galvanized by yours truly. The issues with me have resulted in some ecclesias modifying their statement of faith. The Andrewites now believe and promote the following:
• Jesus is not their king now. • They are not a part of the Kingdom of God now in any way. • God cannot communicate to people via dreams now. • That a man must be saved by faith and works. • That the BUSF is the one and only basis of fellowship (plus their recent amendments) • Breaking bread with Amended is sinful. • They are the sole remnant representing John Thomas and Apostolic doctrine on the earth today. • They do not have eternal life now in any way, shape or form. • That God was so angry with the world that he demanded the violent, bloody death of his son to appease his anger at sin in the flesh. • Any modification to the continuous historical interpretation of Revelation as taught by John Thomas is anathema. • Bible plus pioneer writings is how truth is determined.
Disclaimers I have made some very broad statements representing whole groups as this way or that. I apologize to any individuals that do not fit neatly into any one of those categories (and there are many). Sometimes you have to gloss over details to paint a big picture.
Speaking of details, I have made some very general comments about Christadelphian history. There are a lot of details and nuances that have been glossed over for the sake of brevity and giving an overall picture. The Andrewites LOVE this type of detail since they do not generally obtain their truth directly from the Bible but from the writings of pioneers. This is their forte. Expect them to have a field day with what I have written. They especially hate to admit that JJ Andrew and Thomas Williams were not happy partners as they see both as pioneers. They will attempt to paint Thomas Williams as far less moderate than he really was. They also feel Robert Roberts was a pioneer and have similar hoops to jump through with him but to a lesser extent.
I hate using terms like Andrewites, Thomasites, etc. I am not sure that the brethren who lend their names would approve of their so-called followers. Nevertheless, although it may be unfair to brethren now dead who cannot defend themselves or their names, I am using the terms that have become the de facto designation for these groups.
Faith,
I know you say you aren’t a regular reader of Kyle’s Thought for the Week blog, but you have made a mistake in assuming that Kyle’s comments are only addressed to the “Andrewites” who promote division.
Earlier this year there was a very thought provoking discussion (almost 50 posts!) about The Christadelphian Magazine’s editorial entitled, “Being A Christadelphian”. Kyle wrote about some of the shortcomings of what he calls, “document-based fellowship”. The comments from the July 28 blog entry included the participation of many well respected brethren in the Central community. Half jokingly, I wonder if anyone reading through the comments (without looking at the names) could determine on which side of the schism the contributors sat. Clearly, Kyle’s comments are addressed to all.
Personally, I thought the Christadelphian magazine editorial demonstrated that no matter how accurate a statement of faith, it does not in and of itself keep out error. Among other things, the editorial addressed problems like the one you experienced in Israel. It is sad that some have seemingly baptized indiscriminately by immersing candidates without a complete understanding of the Biblical principles defined in the statement of faith. However, the problem here isn’t the statement of faith, it is the fact that a brother taught poorly. This is one example where a statement of faith doesn’t work as some hope it might.
Your comment about Christ’s brethren preaching through intimidation was pathetic. Speaking of Central brothers and sisters, you wrote, “their main selling point is to scare potential ‘believers’ into baptism by threatening them with the judgment seat (of Christ himself no less!)”. Some people will stoop pretty low to demonize the other side in an attempt to justify preaching division. Admittedly, there are some outliers in Central who would paint all unamended brethren as “Andrewites” like the ones who posted here in the past few days. Ignorant comments like these emphasize the need for brothers and sisters on both sides of the schism to get to know each other and learn firsthand what our brothers and sisters in Christ really do teach. In the early church, brethren were welcomed into fellowship based on letters of introduction (Romans 16:1-2; 2 Corinthians 3:1; Acts 18:7) and personal interviews (I John 4:1-6). What is wrong with this approach today?
If we still used this protocol, that would help prevent situations where a poor teacher is sent out to preach just because he “meets under” a correct statement of faith. And if individuals publicly maligned the way (as you seem to have done with your outrageous comment) or taught wrong doctrine, they would be corrected, censored, and eventually withdrawn from.
Ronnie said: “We’ve seen that to criticize you turns on your excesses of extreme selfishness and your grandiose view of your own talents and and craving for admiration.”
My computer’s dictionary defines narcissism: “extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one’s own talents and a craving for admiration”
Good old cut ‘n paste eh? With an extra ‘and’ for good measure. Talk about document-based ; )
RE: KT’s posting no. 17
Thanks for verifying that narcissim I mentioned.
You have an uncanny knack of overemphasizing the obvious and the mundane while disregarding the sublime details of the Truth.
You just don’t seem to be able to grasp the simplicity of the problem. It’s not people you are offending, on the contrary, it is Yahweh and his son you offend by speaking lies from the bed of Jezebel. We know the Truth and its core teaching of all the fine points of the Atonement. I for one am not a subscriber and what you think about my simplistic stand for the truth bothers me not one iota. As long as error thrives our duty is to devote our lives to destroying it. This is our charge in these last days. Not trying to persuade numbers to move to your narcissitic attitudes.
One last thing. Do a quick survey of the brotherhood and you’ll quickly see that most brethren are dismayed not enemies of your doctrine. Most brethren are more than happy to express their stand.
THE BENEFITS OF THIS OTHERWISE DISMAL “CONVERSATION”
What can we benefit or learn from this?
The argument is sometimes made by brethren in the Central fellowship that we Unamendeds don’t stand up to the “Andrewites.” Hopefully, it has been demonstrated that we do and it has been happening for a long time.
The argument has also been made that Central can’t fellowship with us because we, moderate Unamendeds, fellowship with the Andrewites. As you can see, there is not much chance of that.
I would hope too that those in Central that argue for using the SoF as THE basis of fellowship can see how pitiful their very argument is when articulated (or inarticulated as the case may be) by their most vitriolic opponents. Listen up opponents of unity in Ontario and the Midwest! They are singing your song. It isn’t as sweet of a tune as you thought it was, is it?
I hope that those brethren in Central who fight long and hard against the unity of the One Body realize that their greatest cheerleaders and friends are in reality the Andrewites and vice versa. You are both fighting for the same goal just on opposite sides. The moderates are left in the middle trying to get both extremes to see reason. Repent.
All of this is really about conformity, isn’t it? We all want people to look and act just like us. We want some assurances — even if they are false assurances like a SoF — that everyone is going to conform. We are shocked when it doesn’t work that way. It just makes us lazy, inarticulate and ultimately extreme. Surprise, Jesus told us (and later echoed by Paul) a long time ago not to judge by outward appearances. We want to judge people by which ecclesia they go to, of which SoF their ecclesia has or which Bible school they attend. It is so much easier than actually having to really understand someone or, heaven forbid, having to accept some insignificant difference or point of view.
I hope and pray that when we see the extremes that have been demonstrated so clearly here, it puts a new fire in our heart to not allow superficial differences to continue to divide those of us who see things through an entirely different lens. We share a common hope. We share a common savior. We hope to share immortality. I think we increase our odds of so doing by obeying Christ to be One.
re 22 by a Michael Payne
Yes you could cut and paste a ton of definitions that apply to the personality disorders of folks. I don’t speak strictly from the dictionary, I happen to have first hand experience. I was surprised that the definition given just happens to fit KT and many others of course.
I find it amusing that you folks have to think that all others are in possession of some kind of false intellectualism. Your elitist attitudes appeal to those who are lead around by the nose by lies.
BTW I’ve noticed a lot of cut and pasting going on here in these fruitless postings. Funny how when someone quotes established scientific proofs (and/or medical) that person is automatically labeled as showered with disdain. Surely no one actually knows these things, they must have had to use the dictionary to track down something that fits the situation! Hope you read on in you little dictionary MP, you can discover some deeper intricacies of these medical proofs that real people, yes real people, can become aware of and use in their analyses of people and situations. I carry a worldly education that I am not necessarily proud of but I was educated in many things that are not applicable here or the Truth except maybe allowing a quick and educated insight into situations people have brought upon themselves.
You didn’t know the definition of that strange word(!) I posted and so you had to see for yourself. Then you attacked me as an ignorant anti-elitist that wants only to defile your precious neo-christadelphian stand.
Hey how about looking up elitist and tell us what it means! There may be some people who actually don’t know, you think?
I am off! Fruitless discussions that lead to fruitless conclusions!
Beware brethren, the time is now. PLEASE do not mention my name again………
What a spicy conversation. One I cant resist. Perhaps my lack of restraint will be used as proof of my own “extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one’s own talents and a craving for admiration”. (Yummy!)
I find it interesting how the terms “truth” and “faith” are being used, especially by a number of you who dont seem to understand that the exteme viewpoint is a contradiction of “truth” and is really not the “faith” that Christ will be looking for when He returns. The “faith” Christ will be looking for is the faith of Abraham, who had faith in HIS faithfulness… and did not doubt the promises. In our dispensation, this would translate into a living faith in Christs Sacrifice and its ability to save, not our faith in “accurate” doctrines (statements) and their abilituy to save. Oddly enough believing that we are saved by true doctrines (or statements) rather than Christ effects the atonement just as much or more than any other false doctrine I can think of, and is not a doctrine with power but a doctrine that puts up walls, pushes people away, and sucks the life out of any joy in Christ. Personally I am well versed in that false doctrine because I used to believe it (and teach it freely in the land of Christadelphia I might add)
My late father, Bro. George Estey had stopped fellowshipping Christadelphians over his views on the Sabbath, eating unclean meats and keeping the passover for over 50 years. He was, in his own mind “keeping the truth pure” and became a member of “The Seventh Day Christadelpian Worldwide Church of George” (as I like to call it). He was all about thinking that the “truth” was a list of doctrines. Thankfully a few years before his death, he realized that it was more about patience, love and kindness than his personal statement of faith. Ditto for all of us, hopefully. Those who choose to travel the road of “pure doctrine” looking for those “of like precious (100% in agreement with your own particular brand of statement) faith” will happily get smaller and smaller mistaking lack of size as proof of righteousness. (which my Daddy whooped you all)
Kyles point is having a “living” faith that bears the fruit of the spirit. We bear that fruit when we live our lives in gratitude for what God has done for us through Christ. We reflect the love of God to others because we actually believe in Gods LOVE as Truth. Thats a doctrine with power.
A correction…. My father stopped “breaking bread” for over 50 years, but attended every Christadelphian meeting and function there was – I wrongly used the word “fellowship” in my last comment, because that word has been incorrectly burned into my brain as meaning solely “breaking bread”. My apologies. Language is a difficult thing to change even when you really want to.
This whole episode began with a comment that I made in this week’s TFTW. The comment read:
Our doctrinal and behavioral propositions have been codified into a Statement of Faith which has been misused and abused since inception. All too often we have transformed these truths from a living proclamation of faith and victorious living to a dead contract of legal words to promote our own righteousness and bully those who might express themselves differently.
How interesting that we have been provided with living, real-time proof!
Ordinarily I would not have allowed the conversation to deteriorate to this point. To be honest, in this instance, I encouraged it a little with my goading. On this issue, I felt the benefit would accrue in allowing the behavior to be seen by all in the same way that viewing the movies Schindler’s List or Mississippi Burning might, in their grotesqueness, clue us in to the true nature of racism.
When people believe in the false doctrine of Document-based Fellowship, you often get ridiculous questions or comments like “which statement of faith were you baptized into?” You look at them after they ask such a question waiting for them to bust out laughing so you can share in the joke, but, unfortunately, they are quite serious. I have participated in several on-line discussions where these conversations became so inane that I could not stand to observe them any longer.
Let me provide you with one more example as it relates to the present blog conversation. People say things to me like “why don’t you guys do something about those Andrewites?” Again, you look at them like “are you serious?” but the punch line never comes. We are ALL apart of ONE BODY. Asking such a question is like your hand being on fire and the stomach looking over at the forearm and saying “what are you going to do about that hand?” You want to scream “hey, buddy, don’t you get it that this involves you just as much as it involves me?” When you ask them why they feel like they so not have to be involved, ultimately it gets back to Document-based Fellowship. Because my ecclesia’s Statement of Faith looks more like the flaming hand’s Statement of Faith, it somehow makes me more responsible. It’s an indefensible, illogical and patently unscriptural perspective that is a cancer on us all.
Hopefully, allowing these diatribes has been helpful and instructive to us. We are ALL in this together. I stand by my statement on the Statements of Faith that touched off this heated exchange. As I said and has been so vividly demonstrated “All too often we have transformed these truths from a living proclamation of faith and victorious living to a dead contract of legal words to promote our own righteousness and bully those who might express themselves differently.”
I’ll finish this comment with my own cut and paste: “Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?”
Kyle,
The Christadelphian world is full of many varied beliefs at this time. While The Bible is ultimately our document of fellowship, it is necessary to use a document such as the Christadelphian Statement of Faith because of the huge potential for having someone visit your meeting that has false beliefs and no real time to sit with Bible in hand to see if there is indeed a oneness of mind. The Christadelphian Statement of Faith (and I meet under the BUSF) has a sufficient number of scriptural proofs to make it a summary of BIBLE BASED Fellowship. With the growing number of Christadelphians who believe in things like Theistic Evolution (a violation of clause 4 of the BIBLICAL BASED SOF and the following scriptures it gives Gen. 2:7:17; Job 4:19; 33:6; I Cor. 15:46-49), that death existed before Adam and Eve (a violation of clause 5 of the BIBLICAL BASED SOF and the following scriptures it gives Gen. 3:15-19,22-23; Job 14:4; Psa. 51:5; John 3:6; Rom. 5:12; 6:12; 7:18-24; I Cor. 15:22; II Cor. 1:9; 5:-2-4; Gal.5:16-17), the kingdom exists now (a violation of clauses 19-23 of the BIBLICAL BASED SOF and the 40 scriptural references it gives); and we could go on. Removing the BIBLICAL BASED SOF (for it is supported by numerous scriptures) would create chaos. And as it is indeed being removed in importance, we do see many false doctrines entering the Household. To fellowship these doctrines is not a more Faith based process of fellowship but a violation of Scriptural command, “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”
And sadly, for this reason, we in Orlando would not fellowship those who possess these beliefs as well as many of those you mention in post 20, though your list contains thoughts that no “Andrewite”, or “Thomasite” truly believes. For instance you write, “Any modification to the continuous historical interpretation of Revelation as taught by John Thomas is anathema.” I assume you are referring to our recent “add on” as you call it (we call it a reaffirmation of what we always have believed), as many have been falsely told we have made Brother Thomas a test of fellowship. The statement “continuous historical” encompasses a wide variety of beliefs in reality. My good friend James Farrar for instance does not believe as I do on prophecy, but his beliefs are continuous historical. What is the opposite of continuous historical? It is “preterism” and “futurism”, both of which are catholic inventions being introduced into our community. Brother Thomas is not the definition of continuous historical. But yes, I think his approach is Biblically sound.
Kyle, is not our joy that you and those who wish you God speed would not be welcome to fellowship here in Orlando. But such is the case. It is not a joy to me that you rejected my thoughts when I wrote to you and three other Brethren who share your views on eternal life a couple of years back. But such is the case. If you and the moderates, as you term yourselves, desire to move away from any document as a statement of faith that pertains to fellowship, you are free to do so. But I have a question. Why do you continue to associate with those who have document based fellowship? Should you not be wishing them “God speed”? You broke bread with many at the December gathering that believe in “document based fellowship” (I would term it “Document fellowship on a BIBLICAL BASED SOF). If this is truly a practice that demonstrates a lack of faith as you say, you have sinned in wishing it God speed. Are you not being sinful then in your fellowship practices?
Mac
Mac,
First let me say that I appreciate your tone. I mean that sincerely. It is markedly different than some of your previous posts to me and I think demonstrates a much improved spirit.
You asked a fair and reasonable question so you will hopefully get a fair and reasonable response. Let me quote your question.
“Why do you continue to associate with those who have document based fellowship? Should you not be wishing them “God speed”? You broke bread with many at the December gathering that believe in “document based fellowship” (I would term it “Document fellowship on a BIBLICAL BASED SOF). If this is truly a practice that demonstrates a lack of faith as you say, you have sinned in wishing it God speed. Are you not being sinful then in your fellowship practices?”
First, I think it helps to look at the passage and the context of what bidding someone “godspeed” means as that will be the key to determining if I am guilty of inconsistency. The verse in question is taken from 2 John. It reads in the NIV (vvs. 7-11):
“Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him [the KJV has ‘biddeth him God speed’ where the NIV has ‘welcomes him’] shares in his wicked work.”
So the Bible says if anyone does not believe that Jesus came in the flesh 1) do not take him in your house, and 2) do not welcome him. You seem to take this to mean (and I am not trying to put words in your mouth just interpret your assertion) that anyone who differs with you on any doctrine needs to be withdrawn from. If you break bread with someone who has any differing teachings, this is tantamount to bidding them “god speed.” This seems to me to go well beyond what the Scriptures say. We can debate how far to extend the definition of denying that Jesus came in the flesh, but I think it is very reasonable to conclude that it can’t be extended to mean document-based fellowship (DBF). Denying Jesus came in the flesh can be reasonably argued to include Gnostic heresy views, Trinitarian views, preexistence of Christ views or even Clean Flesh views, but again, it falls well short of DBF. I do not believe we are at liberty to simply change that passage and insert whatever issue we want to insert. So, I guess I would suggest you are misapplying the Scripture as it has no relevance to the topic at hand.
I think we would agree that there are other places in the Scripture where we are told not to allow false doctrines to be taught in our ecclesias. We would obviously differ on the application.
Although I am but one voice in my ecclesia, I would do my best to stop the concept of DBF being taught in my ecclesia from the stand or in secret. If someone came into our meeting and suggested that we announce before the breaking of bread “this ecclesia meets on the basis of the BUSF and welcome all those that endorse these principles” I would mightily oppose it. It is not the principles themselves I oppose, but the notion that our basis of fellowship is a document and not being a part of the One Body. It is the notion that we can abdicate thinking, prayer and meaningful action to defaulting to thoughtless policy and laziness that I oppose. To tell a brother for whom Christ died that he is not welcome because his ecclesia has an insignificantly different way of expressing our One Hope is criminal to me.
The bottom-line, Mac, is that I don’t see in inconsistency whatsoever in breaking bread at the Hall Gathering. I love my brethren at the Hall. Some of the finest brethren I have ever met call the Hall ecclesia their home. I love the brethren in Orlando too although I am disappointed at what appears to me to be the new trajectory of your ecclesia (and I realize you would contend it’s not new at all).
Things have a way of working themselves out over time, though, so I will keep you in my prayers and would appreciate you doing the same for me. If we can’t resolve our differences this side of the Lord’s return, Jesus will sort it out when he comes.
Somehow some incorrect statements have been made, I believe, spurred on by comments on these postings. I would like to apologize for any perceived false information that may have come from me. I have made some pretty ridgid statements about fellowship but this current thing goes beyond any usefullness or verity. Please forgive me for any misunderstanding that may have arisen from anything I wrote. A time to drop a discussion usually rises and I think that time is now, at least for me.
RS
RESPONSE to Kyle Tucker post #20 of the Doctrines with Power TFTW – Kyle, I am not sure if you will want to respond to these questions about your TFTW – Doctrines with Power and the corresponding comments, but I would hope you would respond with a simple response as you can to the simple questions noted below. 1. Based on your comment #20, your beliefs would be the opposite of what you think the “Andrewites” believe. Therefore, you would believe the following statements. True or False? a. Jesus is reigning as King now. b. Believers are part of a “spiritual”, not physical, Kingdom now. c. God communicates to believers today through dreams. d. The salvation of man is not dependent on both faith and works. e. Believers currently have eternal life in some shape or form, but not immortality. 2. If your answer is True to any of these statements in #1 above, then you and I are not likeminded. Would you agree that the status of like-minded with our brethren is something that God has commanded us to strive for? See Rom 15:6; II Cor 13:11; Phil 1:27; Phil 2:2; I Pet 3:8; I Pet4:1 True or False? 3. If brethren are not like minded on fundamental Biblical teachings, then how can they walk together? Do you think that brethren can be in true fellowship if they differ on first principle Biblical teachings? Yes or No? 4. Since you have posted your beliefs in a public forum and since we are commanded to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear, then you shouldn’t have a problem if the entire Christadelphian Body is notified of your beliefs on the items listed in #2? True or False? The purpose of this notification would be to alert the entire Brotherhood of these different teachings that are coming from the WCF organization. I believe that if more brethren are aware of these matters, then there may be some brethren that may be able to reason with you regarding these matters and hopefully persuade you to change your logic and reasoning and return to the old paths of Truth. This notification would also alert the Brotherhood to be aware of these teachings so they can counter the impact of these false doctrines when they teach the Truth to the babes in the brotherhood. 5. Since you have made accusations against those you have identified as “Andrewites”, then could you identify the source of current writings that support your accusations that the group you have identified as “Andrewites” believe the following statement that you made in Comment #20? When a brother makes accusations against other brethren, then they should be able to support the accusations when questioned. This is the only way to be fair and honest with those you accuse. a. That God was so angry with the world that he demanded the violent, bloody death of his son to appease his anger at sin in the flesh.
Bobby,
Everything you’ve asked me is a matter of public record. And how do I know you know that? Because you have written about it and quoted it extensively in the Sanctuary Keeper. So why the games, Bobby? Why is it that every time I encounter you, the verse “And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words” comes into my mind?
You wrote “The purpose of this notification would be to alert the entire Brotherhood of these different teachings.” By “entire Brotherhood” do you mean the readers of the Sanctuary Keeper or the entire worldwide, Christadelphian body (i.e. the Central fellowship, Bereans, Dawn, plus the CGAF)? The latter is what I would mean by the entire Brotherhood. How about you? And if you mean the latter, why don’t you practice it? If you mean the former, you have already done a good job educating them on what I believe and so, again, why the games?
I made the statement that your group believes that “That God was so angry with the world that he demanded the violent, bloody death of his son to appease his anger at sin in the flesh.” This is my understanding from my many years of association with your group. I have no inclination to sift back through all of your materials to find the evidence of my assertion. Again, why the games? If you don’t believe what I wrote, tell me so and explain to everyone what parts I have wrong. If I have misled anyone concerning your beliefs, I am perfectly willing to issue both a retraction and an apology to you. No games. I wasn’t trying to be funny or clever when I said that. I honestly think this is what you believe. If I truly misspoke, I am willing to admit it publicly. Until then, however, I stand by what I said. You might not say it exactly this way, Bobby, but this is what I understand you to believe and teach. Stop playing games and elucidate us on what I said that was wrong.
No games was intended. No, I don’t think that God was angry with the world that it required the sacrifice of His Son to appease him.
Fair enough, Bobby. Please accept my sincere apology for misrepresenting your position (and anyone else I misrepresented) on the atonement. Thank you for taking the time to set me straight on that point.
RE: My posting no. 33
Just to try to clear up this posting. I believe that some questionable postings have been made but the problem still remains. I firmly believe that KTs teachings are in error and the majority of Christadelphians believe this. On the other side of the coin some brothers who are trying to do their best to enlighten the rest of the brotherhood about this error, are being attacked as traitors to the Truth. Their cautionary statements should be faithfully read with a spiritual mind and see how how this error compares to traditional Christadelphianism and Bible teaching.
I simply don’t understand how having a S o F makes you an outlaw among these neo-Christadelphians, and as they teach to the body of Christ. Everything I have been taught from my earliest years in the Truth is nothing more than some kind of mythology these days.
Ronnie,
Let’s see if I can help clear things up a bit.
“Our doctrinal and behavioral propositions have been codified into a Statement of Faith which has been misused and abused since inception. All too often we have transformed these truths from a living proclamation of faith and victorious living to a dead contract of legal words to promote our own righteousness and bully those who might express themselves differently.”
Read that carefully. There are some key points. We have “misused and abused” the SoF. The SoF contains “truths.” We have transformed those “truths” by our behavior from “a living proclamation of faith” to a “dead contract of legal words.” I realize that the distinction between the SoF and how we use it is subtle, but it is vital to understanding the gist of the discussion.
So, the bottom-line, from my perspective is this. The things that I have written such as we have eternal life now or that the Kingdom of God has a present, spiritual existence in heaven (to name a few) are not held by the worldwide Body of Christ as first principles. I wouldn’t have written about it if they were. My Thought for the Week is to get people to think, not tell them that water is wet. However, unlike you, the worldwide Body in general does not hold what I say as false doctrine either. I am sure you could find some who would think what I have said is false doctrine (as I am sure you can find a Christadelphian out there who believes in virtually anything), but mainly it is just you guys that have issues with me.
My main disagreement with significant portion of the worldwide body (which you wholeheartedly agree with ironically) is how we use the Statement of Faith. There are significant portions of the Central Fellowship who practice and promote the false doctrine of Document-based Fellowship just as you do. I am hopeful that these discussions, while confusing, may get some people to think this doctrine through and see how it is completely contrary to the teachings of Scripture. It may very well cause some to be rejected at Judgment as Jesus said “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”
Kyle,
For the public record, please answer post 34 question number 1 part a, b, c, d & e. Since this website is perfect for a public record, you will not have to worry about the audience you mention in post 35 paragraph 2.
“Our Statement of Faith is not used to “exclude” anyone. Rather, it is used to bring brethren of like precious faith together.”
Steve - You are wrong. I, personally, have been “excluded” many times on the basis of nonsense. The most hurtful “exclusion” has been by many of the people posting lately on this blog. Out of ignorance of Christ’s example and a need for perceived “power” in the Unamended Christadelphian body, I have been excluded and I AM ONE OF THOSE “brethren of like precious faith” whether the excluders want to recognize me or not. God knows me. And he loves me. These ridiculous rants against “brothers and sisters” have got to stop. Yeshua, my Messiah, is ashamed of what he is witnessing in these discussions. I can’t even make myself read all of the dialogue because it makes me physically ill.
Kyle – Go on a long run and pray for the peace of Jerusalem. Our Lord and Saviour will be here soon. Praise Yahweh!
Two incidences occurred this morning whose connection and relevance will be apparent in a minute.
The first was the headlines in our local paper that several members of the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church had been in town yesterday. You may remember this 70 member church from the news. They go around the country and disrupt the funeral services of dead soldiers because they believe their deaths are God’s punishment on the US for tolerating “sodomite hypocrites.” They chanted slogans like “God will destroy you” and “None of you obey God.” They said that they are too ashamed to call themselves Christians. Anyway, you get the picture of a small, self-righteous, extreme group who hates and wants everyone to listen to them. I wondered why they put this on the front page of the newspaper. Weren’t they just giving them what they wanted by doing so?
The second incident this morning was a dream that I had. In the dream I came home and three people were coming out of my house. I asked them who they were and why they were in my house. They began to verbally attack me. They said they had some issues with the way that I kept my yard and began drilling me with belligerent questions about who I was and what I was doing. It was obvious that they felt that I was in the wrong and were trying to put me on the defensive. I thought how bizarre it was for people to come into my house and act like I had offended them. Finally, I calmly told them that I was going to have to call the police as I needed them and their vehicle searched to make sure they didn’t take anything. I awoke at that point.
I think that some good has come out of this discussion, but the time has come to draw this dialog to a close. We’ve established that the Sanctuary Keeper/Truth Gleaner brethren don’t think I am of sound doctrine. We’ve established that I think they are a very small minority that does not represent anything but their own extreme views. If you want to hear more from them about this topic, please subscribe to one of their publications. I’ve never asked to be published in any of their magazines, but I doubt seriously that they would have given me the same freedom to say what I wanted in their magazines as I have given them here. With that said, though, enough is enough. You work in your fields and I will work in mine.
The matter is now officially closed.