HOME | THE MAGAZINE | PROPHECY/NEWS

BOOKS/BOOKLETS | EMAIL | SITE MAP | PDF Files

Reunion Committee Meeting's MinutesMarch 27, 1981 by J.B. Scaramastro

CONTINENTAL COMMITTEE BRETHREN

Friday, March 27, 1981

John (Jack) Brewis (Williamsville Ecclesia)William Butts (Washington D.C. Ecclesia)Frank Haughton (Worchester, Massachusetts Ecclesia)Ashley Higham (Jasonville Ecclesia)Wally Scott (London-west, Ontario Ecclesia)R. R. (Dick) Stone (Los Angeles Ecclesia)Roy A. Styles (Detroit Ecclesia)

INDEPENDENT EFFORT BRETHREN

Alfred NichollsDon Styles (Detroit Ecclesia)Harry Tennant

AREA DELEGATES

Harold (Bart.) Bartholomew (Vernon, B.C.) (Vernon Ecclesia)Alvan Brittle (Mendham, New Jersey) (Echo Lake Ecclesia)Arvin Brokaw (New Ross, Indiana) (Brownsburg Ecclesia)Gar Cooper (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) (Pittsburgh Ecclesia)John Hensley (Ontario, California) (Los Angeles Ecclesia)R. (Bob) Lloyd (Altadena, California) (Glendale Ecclesia)Norman Luff (Manitoulin Island, Ontario)Brian Pearse (Toronto, Ontario) (Scarlett Road Ecclesia)Julio B. Scaramastro (Country Club Hills, Illinois) (Chicago, Ecclesia)Malcom Shrimpton (Victoria/Vancouver, B.C.)Ted Sleeper (San Francisco, California) (San Francisco Ecclesia)

OBSERVERS

R. (Bob) Brinkerhoff (Chino, California) (Los Angeles Ecclesia)George Carrick (Hamilton, Ontario) (Hamilton Ecclesia)Paul Edwards (San Francisco, California) (San Francisco Ecclesia)Alex Higham (Salem, Ontario) (Salem Ecclesia)Max Millar (Burlington, Ontario) (Hamilton Ecclesia)Warren Phillips (Meriden, Connecticut) (Meriden Ecclesia)Peter Robinson (Burlington, Ontario) (Hamilton Ecclesia)

Peter Robinson (Burlington, Ontario) (Hamilton Ecclesia)Paul Schlicker (Bucks County, Pennsylvania Ecclesia)Don Snobelen (Victoria, B.C.)Jim Styles (Livonia, Michigan) (Detroit Ecclesia)Ken Styles (Detroit Ecclesia)Paul Wade (Houston, Texas) (Houston Ecclesia)

NOTE: COMMENTS IN BLUE ARE MINE - J.B. SCARAMASTRO

Frank Haughton presiding.Alfred Nicholls gave opening prayer.Conduct of the meeting stated by Frank Haughton.Frank calls upon Don Styles to make his presentation.

DON STYLES PRESENTATION:

1. We are faced with a judgment decision.

2. It is not a black and white matter that we are dealing with. (Such a statement representsDon's opinion which does not happen to be that of others including myself.)

3. It would have been nice if God had put on record a statement of doctrines for fellowship.

4. The only reason we are considering reunion is the doctrine of the unity of the body.

a. John 17:19,20,21 is brought forward to support his reason for considering reunion. Thearticle entitled "Fellowship--its Spirit and Practice" which originally appeared in the January1972 Christadelphian was also brought up at this point.

b. The doctrine of God-manifestation was appealed to as requiring us to consider the abovereason.

c. We recognize that there are variations of view that if they were brought out would causedivision. (Of what value is such a reason? How can we justify adding additional problems byreferring to ones we already have? It would seem that the rational thing to do would be to tryand limit or eliminate as many problems as possible. It would seem that the scriptural thingto do is to contend against all error and not allow an increase in the amount of error becauseyou already have some to deal with! To put it another way, it does not make much sense todrill a second hole in your boat to control the water coming in the first!)

d. We must strive for peace and not emphasize problems. (Problems can not be solved untilthey are identified as such and then they can be dealt with. It is only an ostrich mentality whichthinks that by sticking one's head in the sand that the problem will be solved. Problems donot tend to go away by themselves! Problems that are shelved remain there until taken downand dealt with.)

e. The situation we are presented with is a matter of attitude. (It would seem to me that thepresent bottleneck is doctrinal and that true reunion can not take place until it is resolved nomatter what everyone's attitude is.)

f. Both groups are faced with problems in the areas of the military, jury duty, the charismaticmovement, etc. which cut across fellowship lines. (Another poor reason for reunion is offered!

movement, etc. which cut across fellowship lines. (Another poor reason for reunion is offered!Such problems face the Jehovah's Witnesses also; therefore, should we join with them tobattle these problems? The obvious answer is emphatically no! Why? Because of doctrinaldifferences! Likewise in the case under consideration even though the doctrinal differencesare not as great. However, doctrinal differences are doctrinal differences no matter how greator how small they are!)

g. The present situation is brought up where in some localities small groups of bothUnamended and Amended exist in close proximity but can not meet because ofinter-ecclesial fellowship problems. (Again, another non reason is offered which avoids thereal issue which is fundamental doctrinal difference. All this point is--is an appeal to theemotions and not to reason!)

h. A possible threat of a chaotic inter-ecclesial situation developing if a reunion is not arrivedat. (Again, another non-reason is appealed to for support. Obviously, this is an emotionalappeal and not one of reason. It is the old cry of wolf when in fact the course that is beingsuggested is allowing the wolf of doctrinal error in! Sound and firm leadership can limit sucha problem. In fact, the only situation that can develop if reunion on an unsound basis isrejected, is that where some Amended might join the Unamended and vice-versa. However, ifreunion is effected on the present unsound basis, then we will have a much more complexsituation for the Andrewites will split from the rest of the Unamended who are joining aportion of Central, and the conservative element will split from this new group created by thisunsound reunion basis. Thus reunion is being brought about by splitting both the presentUnamended and Amended bodies. Reunion via Disunion!)

Don Styles now proceeded to read The North American Unity Proposal from the Preamblethrough the section entitled "General Beliefs." Under the section entitled "Fellowship" it waspointed out that there were really no problems here for both groups were faithful to theirstatement of faith. Under the section entitled "Nature of Man" the phrase "transmitted to all hisposterity" was explained to mean "the effects were transmitted" and that some such wordingshould be added to the text.

Bill Butts comments: This document does not go as far as I, Wally Scott, Don Styles, AlfredNicholls or Harry Tennant would like it to go. He now emphasized that he supported theBASF.(So why is he responsible for a document which abandons part of it? A documentwhich turns responsibility to the Judgment Seat of Christ for the enlightened rejecter into amaybe! How can a statement of faith be built on possibilities? If something is not a definitetruth, then it should not be in the Statement of Faith. If it is a definite truth, then it should not beabandoned for the sake of reunion with a group who does not believe it to be so. It is my firmconviction that light is the grounds of resurrectional responsibility as taught since the days ofBro. John Thomas and that it is not just a possibility or a maybe anymore than the Kingdomof God being here on earth is a possibility or a maybe! It is an absolute fact!) He believes thatthe rift is so small that he is willing to support this reunion proposal because of the problemsthat will develop if we do not. (Note the two assumptions: (1) The rift is small. (2) Problemswill develop if we do not have reunion. In regards to assumption number one: The BASF is aminimum statement of saving truth. It thus follows that no matter how close you are to it, if youare below it, then you are below the minimum amount of knowledge for salvation! To put itanother way, if you have to jump ten feet to clear a thousand foot deep chasm and you onlyjump nine feet, then it is all over. Ten feet was the minimum requirement and anything lesswould not be sufficient for jumping to safety. No matter how close you think nine feet happens

would not be sufficient for jumping to safety. No matter how close you think nine feet happensto be it will not save you from certain doom on the chasm floor below.)

He then stated that he was supporting it as the best we can get and that eventually the ship ofstate will right itself. (Note: the two points made in this statement: (1) This document is notwhat we would like, but is the best we can get from the Unamended. (2) The ecclesial "shipof state" will right itself despite the permitting of less doctrinally than we would like. Franklyspeaking, if this is the best we can get doctrinally, then it is unacceptable. We either maintainthe clarity of the truth on this issue or we do not! I believe the clarity of the truth must beupheld. We must not reduce its clarity or introduce doubt concerning it by making it only apossibility. In answer to the second point, ships do not right themselves by damaging theirhull. In order for the ship to right itself it requires the work of qualified people correcting thedamage and not increasing it. Likewise, true to the analogy, the ecclesial "ship of state" canonly be kept afloat by avoiding those influences that could damage it, or repairing damagesthat occur, through the use of the skills of highly qualified brethren following strictly the rulesof the manual that must govern the work; namely, the Bible.)

Wally Scott comments: Don Styles has reported well the feeling and rapport that they haddeveloped with the Unamended. (Note that such a statement indicates an emotionalresponse and not one which is governed by The Scriptures.) He pointed out theUnamended's desire to accommodate our position. (How? By our capitulation to theirunderstanding of responsibility? After all, we can no longer maintain the definition ofresponsibility as set out in Clause XXIV of the BASF as a first principle or make it a test offellowship! Is this the accommodation of our position? It sounds more like usaccommodating them!) He stated that the Unamended would support this documentwholeheartedly. (Why shouldn't they since they still can maintain their beliefs aboutresponsibility!) He claimed that he would support it. He referred to the unity of the body asbrought out by Don as supportive of his position. (Of course, the Bible clearly establishes thatdoctrinally there must be unity of mind to have unity of body. Where is it in this case?) Heclaimed that he had a very comfortable feeling that they were of the same mind about theTruth. (Note that this is an expression of "feeling" and not an objective analysis of theirbeliefs. In fact, they do not teach or believe the same things about resurrectionalresponsibility as we do. Therefore they do not hold the Truth as we understand it to be clearlyset forth in the Word of God.) He hoped that they would eventually accept the BASFwholeheartedly. (How can they wholeheartedly accept it since the acceptance of thisdocument removes part of the BASF to accommodate them? By accepting this document, weare agreeing that responsibility as set out in Clause XXIV is not clearly revealed in theScriptures. How can we convince anyone that it is scriptural once you acknowledge it as notclearly scriptural? Who is even going to care to discuss an item that cannot be shown to beclearly the truth anyway? After all, it is only speculation since it can not be proved and of whatvalue is speculation in regards to anyone's salvation?) He pointed out that the Unamendedare willing to withdraw from those who persist in error. (By this he means Andrewites and notWilliamites. All through this discussion the erroneous view of Thomas Williams is acceptedas permissible by those who wrote this document. It is never treated as it clearly should beand that is as error.) He stated that he will give his wholehearted support to this document!

Frank Haughton now opened it up for some questioning about what has been said by Don,Bill, and Wally

B. PEARSE: He asked Don what was meant by the phrase "Federal Head" occurring underthe section entitled "Nature of Man."

the section entitled "Nature of Man."

D. STYLES: He acknowledged that the word was not scriptural but came from John Carter'sexplanation of Rom. 5 where the concept of one man's sin led to all being sinners andmortal, and in contrast one man's righteousness has led to the imputation of righteousnessby the forgiveness of sin for all in Christ and the gift of life at Christ's return.

B. PEARSE: He asked about the phrase "the law of the spirit of life" under the section entitled"The Meaning of Baptism."

D. STYLES: It is scriptural and comes from Rom. 8.

JOHN HENSLEY: He asked if the Unamended would come out from the Advocate fellowship?

D. STYLES: Yes! There would be no cross fellowship.

ALVAN BRITTLE: He asked for an explanation of the difference between point 1d under thesection entitled "Responsibility" of the North American Unity Proposal, and that of point 2 ofthe document entitled "The Ten Points?" Do they say the same thing?

D. STYLES: It is hard to relate the two for they took "The Ten Points" and removed theredundancy. He does not know if there is technically any difference. It is a matter ofre-emphasis, a difference of emphasis.

A. BRITTLE: When anyone is not reunion oriented, they say the two paragraphs say the samething when read.

W. BUTTS: He claims that the switch is in emphasis. He stated that 1d is scriptural.

J.B.S.: Would the Unamended withdraw from the Advocates with or without a reunion withCentral?

D. STYLES: He claimed that in practice that a lot of this is going on already. He stated thatwhen the Unamended were confronted with this point that they pointed to the problems inCentral and stated that we have not cleaned them up as yet either. Thus their reason for notdoing so is that they maintain a similar attitude as ourselves. (It is unfortunate that suchreasoning can be used against us. However, two wrongs do not make a right and it is wrongto rationalize away one's position in this fashion. The point remains, if they acknowledge agroup as holding error, then they should withdraw from that group regardless of what anotherfellowship is doing! Likewise, the principle holds true for us as well! It is about time that westarted putting our own house in order rather than increasing its problems by adding to ourfellowship those who do not believe identically to us on such an important issue as thegrounds of resurrectional responsibility. Separation from error is not only scriptural, butessential for salvation! It has historically been the case that we have always hesitated to takequick and scripturally correct action when dealing with problems that have occurred if thenumbers involved have been small and they were not dogmatic. However, history shows thatthe problems eventually grew so large that we were forced to do something about them. Theproblems then required major surgery rather than minor surgery and consequently thesolution was both more painful and more traumatic. This observation is exactly what appearsto have taken place in regards to the responsibility question. Initially the view held by ThomasWilliams did not represent the general teaching of the body and was insignificant because it

Williams did not represent the general teaching of the body and was insignificant because itrepresented the exception rather than the rule and therefore the typical inertia wasexperienced. However, through the use of the magazine called "The Advocate" the problemgrew, and increased, and spread until we have the conversion to the erroneous viewpoint ofJ. J. Andrew. Thus what was a minor problem initially and could have been easily dealt withnow assumed major proportions and led to a major split. This development was a directresult of a lack of foresightedness in handling the problem as well as an unwillingness totake action. When confronted with problems we must act quickly and scripturally. Ecc. 8:11;Is. 26:10)

N. LUFF: He did not feel that the first sentence of the first paragraph of the "Preamble" was thebest of reason's, even though true, for effecting a reunion. The unity of the body is moreimportant.

D. STYLES: He read a couple of possible alternatives.

DICK STONE: He stated that none of them really state the trust of the reason for reunion andthat it should be stated clearly.

D. STYLES: He agreed but stated that he did not write those suggested alternatives.

A. BRITTLE: He still did not see the difference between paragraph 1d of the presentstatement on responsibility and that of paragraph 2 of "The Ten Points." If someonepresented themselves to their meeting and still did not believe anyone will be there* (that isenlightened rejecters), would they fellowship them? (*that is, at the resurrection.)

D. STYLES: In response to Alvan's question, he stated that we have agreed that thisdocument is the basis of fellowship. This document only officially precludes the J. J. Andrewviewpoint. (Note how he did not answer whether he would fellowship such an individual ornot if he knew the individual was of the category described by Alvan.)

A. BRITTLE: He stated that our decisions should not be based on arithmetic.

ALEX HIGHAM: He pointed out that Don was incorrect in respect to the fellowshipping ofAdvocates by the Unamended at least in Oregon. (In other words, they were fellowshippingeach other and not disfellowshipping each other as had been suggested by Don in answer tomy question.)

JOHN HENSLEY: He questioned 1d on responsibility. Do the Unamended believe and acceptthat light is grounds for resurrectional responsibility? (Note: John emphasized he hadremoved the definite article ''the" from his statement. Thus the way he put it would be asking ifthey would even acknowledge it as one of the ways God might use as the basis forresurrectional judgment.)

D. STYLES: He claimed that such a statement was ambiguous! In regards to what theUnamended believe about this subject, Don pointed out that the section entitled "Foreward"is to the point. He told us to particularly note paragraphs 3 and 4. He also asked us to look athis letter dated March 13, 1981. He then decided to read the "Foreward" all the way through. Itis apparent from this, that the Unamended do not feel the Amended's position onresurrectional responsibility is scripturally clear enough for a test of fellowship. Don also read

resurrectional responsibility is scripturally clear enough for a test of fellowship. Don also readfrom his letter dated March 13, 1981 starting at the bottom of Page 2 at the paragraph whichbegins with the words "A couple of months ago" and continuing through the paragraph onPage 3 which begins with the words "Others feel that the. . ." Don then stated that the word"certainty," occurring in the paragraph on Page 3 which begins with the words "Some feel thatthe . . .," is unacceptable to the Unamended.

J. HENSLEY: Do you feel they believe light is grounds for resurrectional responsibility? (Notsure of the phraseology)

D. STYLES: No! They do not want us to feel that they are in 100% agreement with us.

BOB LLOYD: He acknowledged that there were Unamended who were not in fellowship witheach other.

B. PEARSE: He asked if the reason why the Unamended were pursuing this type of reasoningand wording was because there is a possibility for other reasons for resurrectional judgment.

D. STYLES: He stated that the Unamended's view did not hold up to well.

J.B.S.: I asked about what was the ambiguity of light is grounds of resurrectional judgment.

D. STYLES: He tried to undermine the view that there is a level of knowledge required forresurrection.

J.B.S.: I told him that he was beating around the bush! (Ps. 49:20 which says, "Man that is inhonor, and understandeth not, is like the beasts that perish," is quite to the point. It clearlyindicates that if an individual does not have the understanding required by God, then thatindividual will perish like the beasts of the field. If a statement is true, as that contained in Ps.49: 20 is, then its contra positive is also true. The contra positive would read as follows: If anindividual will not perish, then the individual has the understanding required by God. Ofcourse, in this latter form it is quite obvious that a resurrection to life is in view as the contextalso shows. This fact means that the understanding essential for salvation, or to put itanother way, the understanding essential for a valid baptism is under consideration. Havingidentified the type of understanding being talked about through considering the contrapositive, it becomes quite clear that this is the type of understanding being considered in theoriginal statement. Thus a definite level of knowledge known to God is at the basis ofresurrection.)

DICK STONE: He asked what are the other bases?

D. STYLES: He stated the intensity of an individual's sins!

DICK STONE: Why is that a possibility?

DICK STONE: Why don't they say "Light is the grounds of resurrectional judgment?""Possibility" just seems to accommodate the Unamended!

ROY STYLES: He referred to the scriptural passages offered under the section ofresponsibility!

DICK STONE: He stated that they interpret those passages differently. (At this point in thediscussion it was brought out that the Unamended had not supplied the Scriptures under thesection on responsibility.)

J. BREWIS: He pointed to the person who reaches a certain level of knowledge and then canbe validly baptized. Thus this level indicates level of knowledge.

TED SLEEPER: He referred to a meeting where the Unamended's view on the use of the word"possibility" in 1d was presented. He stated some of their objections to the Amended'sunderstanding. One of their attempts to cast doubt upon the Amended's position was thefollowing hypothetical case: Would God raise someone who reached this level of knowledgebut later on, due to forgetfulness, allows his mind to return to darkness? (It would appear thatwhat was being suggested by this is that we cannot say with any certainty that such anindividual will be raised. In fact, we can say that he will be there just like the individual who isvalidly baptized and follows a similar course will be there. What happens after enlightenmentonly affects whether one's destiny will be life or death, and not whether one will be raised forjudgment!) (He made other such suggestions, but I did not get them all. However, he referredto having them in print somewhere.) He then tried to state that the Unamended's reason forusing the word "Possibility" refers to who is going to be there.

DICK STONE: He asked what is it that has to be added to "Possibility" to get a person raised.(This question was never really answered.)

D. STYLES: He stated that 1d is a Bible principle according to the Unamended. (How cansomething that is a "possibility" be a Bible principle? I know of no truths which are only"possibilities." It is either definitely a principle, or a truth, or it is not! A statement of faith is notbuilt on "possibilities" or maybes" for it is supposed to represent clear Bible truths essentialfor salvation. If an item is only a "possibility," then there is doubt as to its signification andmeaning. Again I repeat, a statement of faith should not contain statements of doubt andshould not foster doubts about the principles set out therein!)

DICK STONE: He asked what is the Bible principle expounded in 1d.

DICK STONE: Under what circumstances is resurrection to judgment possible? We say Godwill and the Unamended say "possibility." What is needed for it to be a reality?

JOHN HENSLEY: He stated the way 1d can be read. The word "possibility" can be read asmeaning "may" or "may not." The word "possibility" is an obstacle.

D. STYLES: He tried to say that he does not believe that the Scriptures define the level ofknowledge. (His case was not very convincing as far as I was concerned.)

J. HENSLEY: He pointed out that Christ did not say "possibly" in John 12 about those whoreject him.

G. COOPER: He stated that being precise is not as important as the spirit of the agreement.We should not try to define a legal law! We should not argue about words and letters!(Obviously it is not understood that it is not a matter of words or letters, but of stating anddefending a clear Scriptural principle that is involved. Again, we find an emotional appealdevoid of reason.)

devoid of reason.)

A. BRITTLE: He asked whether it would be possible to find some wording that would besuitable to all. He then suggested the following: "God will decide which individuals havesufficient knowledge to be raised for judgment."

D. STYLES: He stated that the Unamended would not accept that, and that he would notaccept it! He would not even try to sell it to them!

MALCOM SHRIMPTON: When he was presenting "The Ten Points" to his ecclesia, he was,asked a question that he could not answer; namely, "How does the other fellowship view 'TheTen Points'?" Upon attempting to resolve this question by finding out the Unamended'sposition, he maintained that their reason for the word "possibility" was to protect againstidentifying an individual as definitely going to be at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

BOB LLOYD: (Using the language contained in both "The Ten Points" and the section entitled"Responsibility" in The North American Unity Proposal!) We "deplore" the word "Possibility"!Therefore, since point 3 of the present section on responsibility solves their problem inregards to identifying a particular individual, why not remove the word "possibility," which we"deplore," from 1d.

15 MINUTE ADJOURNMENT

FRANK HAUGHTON: When the Continental Committee voted on this document earlier thatday, four members voted for it because they thought it was a very good document and shouldbe offered to the ecclesias. Three members were against it.

A. NICHOLLS: He was going to state matters of fact and not personal opinion. He wasinvolved as a representative of the CMPA (Christadelphian Magazine Publishing Association),and was invited to be involved. Initially, he only answered questions and did not offer adviceor personal opinion. He was involved with the subcommittee which developed this document.The CMPA has given the responsibility in this area to him and H. Tennant. Whatever happenshere, A. Nicholls and H. Tennant and the CMPA and the magazine would be loyal to thedecision. The decision will affect the rest of the world brotherhood. He will help in regards tohis opinion and the implementation of this basis of reunion. When the proper time comesthey (he and Harry) will try to help in the assessment of the situation depending on whether itis "go" or "no go." He reminded all that the CMPA is committed to the BASF. (If it is committedto the BASF, then how can it support a document which is not!)

H. TENNANT: He has read extensively. The more he read, the more profound his respectbecame of Brother Thomas and Brother Carter for exposition, and Brother Roberts onfellowship. He maintains that he is on the BASF. (Notice how all these people who aresupporting this document are compelled by the nature of this document to admit that theypersonally believe in the BASF. The obvious reason for this is to try and avoid the naturalcharge, for the support of this document, that they do not! This document sets aside ClauseXXIV as a basis of fellowship!) The concern in Britain would not be that we are out of step withthem (and consequently with the BASF), but rather that there is a problem that has to besolved. (Are problems solved by reducing the statement of faith? Are problems solved bybeing out of step with the BASF? Is the abandonment of a clear statement, containing nodoubt, on resurrectional responsibility for one which is not as positive, and contains doubt, a

doubt, on resurrectional responsibility for one which is not as positive, and contains doubt, asolving of the problem? Since when is the case for Truth served by being doubtful orambiguous? How is it possible to maintain the BASF as completely scriptural when yourbasis of fellowship acknowledges that part of it is not?) In the beginning, we have theunearthing of the Truth by Brother Thomas: Baptism after accepting the Truth, The Kingdom,Responsibility. This definition of the Truth was repeated by Bro. Roberts, C. C. Walker, andJohn Carter. There arose problems around the Atonement: Turney, J. J. Andrew. (Notice thatThomas Williams is not mentioned even though his view of the Atonement was not correcteither!). J. J. Andrew brought to light the problem about responsibility. (Correction, ThomasWilliams brought to light the problem and J. J. Andrew was converted to his way of thinking!)In order to be raised from the grave one had to be touched by the blood of the EverlastingCovenant. Such teaching forced us into our definition of Clause XXIV. When thesediscussions began, we had all sorts of fears and suspicions about what the other sidebelieved. The voting of the Continental Committee earlier was only on the section entitled"Responsibility," which was 4-3 in favor. It was not a voting on the rest of the document whichwould have been 7-0 in favor. (This statement is an obvious assumption which appears tome to be presumptuous. The rest of the document also has inadequacies which areunacceptable as far as I am concerned. Anyone who can accept this document as a clearstatement of The Truth as it is in Jesus must either be naive or willingly ignorant!) What wesay about this does not matter for God is going to perform His will regardless. What we aretrying to find out is how for we have no power in it at all. (However, whether we represent orbelieve The Truth correctly affects our relationship with God! We definitely can not changeGod's will by wrongly defining it, but we can affect our destiny, and others, as well, who followour misrepresentations of it! We are definitely responsible for our teaching of others. James3:1) The present situation is that there is a movement towards the line which is us. We arenot very far apart. (Another subjective statement!) He brought up an earlier idea of BrotherRoberts about resurrection. (This statement is unfortunate for Brother Roberts clearlychanged his mind on the point he is bringing up. Also, it must be remembered it was not aquestion if the enlightened rejecter was going to be raised, but when in Brother Roberts'earlier position. Again, he later repudiates this view.) He then mentioned that Brother Thomasexpressed hesitation about making it a test of fellowship. (An earlier comment deals with thishesitation.) That hesitancy continued in Brother Roberts' day. It was J. J. Andrew that broughtit into focus. Now that J. J. Andrew's ideas have been removed we are back to the situationbefore it developed. (Notice how the burden of the problem has been placed upon J. J.Andrew whereas it was from Thomas Williams that J. J. Andrew got his ideas. Not only that,but it is claimed that with this document we are right back where we were before J. J.Andrew's position came upon the scene! This view is not accurate for the B.S.F. wasunderstood to mean exactly what the B.A.S.F. now clearly says, but with this document thatclear understanding is being removed. The position upon responsibility is that of ThomasWilliams as far as fellowship is concerned, and not that taught by Brethren Thomas andRoberts and the Amended ever since. Thus we are not really back where we were before J. J.Andrew came upon the scene!) Brother Carter expressed a willingness to accept someonewho had hesitancy. We should seriously look at this document, because the gap is closingand consider accepting it. He claimed he could not have voted for "The Ten Points," nor couldA. Nicholls. He thinks this document is far better, a great improvement. (in what way?) Hestated that both he and A. Nicholls would make known how they would vote on this document.(Isn't it already obvious how they would vote?)

JOHN BREWIS: When Brother Carter spent some time with him, he told John the following:"You have not got the Andrew's problem in North America, but you have the Thomas Williams'problem!" What does H. Tennant think about this?

problem!" What does H. Tennant think about this?

H. TENNANT: We have the vestigals of Thomas Williams. The "possibility" in 1d and the"may"of Thomas Williams are the same. He claims that the Unamended have moved towards us.

R. STYLES: He tried to emphasize that the problem was the denial of Thomas Williams toseparate from J. J. Andrews that kept him out of fellowship. He read a part of a sectionentitled "The Responsibility Controversy" occurring on pages 136-137 of the 1908Christadelphian Magazine. (This item was supplied by myself to prove just the opposite of theway he tried to use it. It does not say he refused to deny fellowship to J. J. Andrew, but herefused not to fellowship the doctrine. Later on it says he opposed Clause XXIV! In otherwords, he himself was doctrinally off! Whenever we say we fellowship certain principles, itmeans we find those principles acceptable, otherwise we would not fellowship thoseprinciples. He obviously opposed Clause XXIV for it excluded his views as well as J. J.Andrews.)

G. COOPER: We should forget about the past and look forward.

B. PEARSE: He agreed with Gar. He then stated that, if we do not have a reunion, then we aregoing to have reunion piecemeal. He then emphasized that we do not baptize individuals whocome from another fellowship. All that we require is an interview. If this is the best we can get,then we should accept it and push it.

D. SNOBELEN: He commended the efforts of Don Styles. He said that he was schooled in theUnamended, then joined Central, then the Bereans, and then Central. Because of being partof Truth Corp, he has been able to examine the Unamended. The missionaries have affectedthis movement of the two groups towards each other. He claims that we need each other.(Why?) He claimed that God has done this! (A statement which could not be verified even if itis true and I do not believe it to be true. Since when would God be the author of a situationwhich sees His Truth being watered down!) He made the appeal that if we could only get DickStone and John Hensley to go to the Unamended gatherings that they would feel the sameway. (Note the emotionalism all through this appeal. Note the advocacy of removing thebarrier of separation of not associating with each other would lead to the removal of thebarrier of not fellowshipping each other. However, the weight of the Scriptures is against suchadvice. Where there is no unity of mind there is no unity of body and the attempt to violate thisprinciple can only undermine the Truth as believed by us.)

BOB BRINKERHOFF: Please define the steps to reunion. Suppose the vote of the ecclesia isnot unanimous, then, what do you do? We must vote for it without worrying about itsconsequences! People will vote negatively because they feel that its acceptance will causedivision.

F. HAUGHTON: We should not vote on the basis of fear, but on whether it is acceptable or not.

W. BUTTS: A plan has yet to be worked out. It would be sent out to the ecclesias to find outwhat the ecclesias think, and then be sent back to be analyzed.

W. SCOTT: We first have to find out what the brethren here feel. The idea is to cause unity notdivision. We should all be aware of how much work Don Styles has put into this. He thinks itwould be appropriate for the chairman to thank him for all of us.

would be appropriate for the chairman to thank him for all of us.

R. STYLES: He commented on what to do. He addressed it and decided to let it rest until wefind out what this group wants. If we get a clear vote here, then we can determine the nextstep.

B. BRINKERHOFF: He stated that a yes vote by the ecclesias does not mean an immediateacceptance of the document. (This point was agreed to. However, what else could a yes votemean except acceptance of the document?)

H. BARTHOLOMEW: At lunch we tried to assess the situation. He wanted to put it on recordthat he is against this document. He then proceeded to point out that no where does it statethe basis of unity in this document. During lunch he had looked up every passage where theword "unity" occurs in the Bible. It is quite clear that we must be of the same mind to be of thesame body. (Various passages of Scripture were quoted to prove this point.) This documentproves that we do not have unity of mind. (This point is absolutely true!) He believes that lightis THE ground of resurrectional responsibility is a first principle.

B. PEARSE: Do you feel we need to re-baptize them then?

H. BARTHOLOMEW: He stated we need to! (I am in firm agreement with him on this point!)

B. PEARSE: He stated that rebaptism is necessary in the case of J. J. Andrew's teaching, butotherwise it is not.

H. BARTHOLOMEW: Do you believe it is a first principle?

B. PEARSE: No!

H. BARTHOLOMEW: He refers to publications that have been issued by the Unamendedduring the 1970's which prove that the Unamended still maintain Thomas Williams'teachings. Are they willing to withdraw these publications?

ALEX HIGHAM: He is not convinced that they have changed! He has seen a letter from KenMcPhee that states that he has changed with respect to his parents view and that he takes totask Brother Rene Growcott for the Berean's position on responsibility.

W. BUTTS: In answer to H. Bartholomew's previous question: Richmond, Virginia is a J. J.Andrew ecclesia therefore he could discount their issuing such a book.

H. BARTHOLOMEW: He points out that that explanation can be set aside for the CompassMagazine still sells it. (The Compass Magazine is issued in Hamilton. The view of those whoedit it is more in line with the Unamended than the Advocates.)

D. STYLES: In an attempt to undermine H. Bartholomew's presentation on the unity of thebody, Don referred to the difference of "opinions" in Central upon such subjects as thetemptation of Christ, in the flood (local or universal), etc., etc. (Note he used the word"opinions" which gives away his argument. "Opinions" are feelings and not demonstrated oreven demonstrable facts. It is also obvious that "opinions" are not doctrines which makes abig difference. What we are dealing with is a matter of doctrine and not a matter of one'sopinion. We are defining a fundamental scriptural principle or truth not discussing a possible

opinion. We are defining a fundamental scriptural principle or truth not discussing a possibleinterpretation of an historical event.)

H. BARTHOLOMEW: Those examples are not first principles because they do not affect thewalk in our lives.

D. STYLES: He tried to emphasize that it is the affect upon our lives that constitutessomething a first principle. (This type of reasoning can only be pressed so far for many thingscan and do affect our lives but are not first principles. As far as I am concerned, the mainelement is that the item is scripturally sound, because "All Scripture is given by inspiration ofGod, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim. 3:16,17.Note that Paul emphasizes that all of the Scriptures, and not just some, are doctrinal andaffect our walk in life. Thus to try and use the above criteria for a classification of firstprinciples is impossible for Paul's explanation, which is the spirit's explanation, says that thatcriteria is true of "all scripture." Therefore, in my understanding, we must emphasize theaspect of whether it is scriptural or not. Another way to look at it is, is the principle involved anelement of the Gospel, or the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the name of JesusChrist, Acts 8:12, or isn't it? In the case under consideration, we are actually considering thepower of the Gospel to save, Rom. 1:16, as well as one's attitude towards it as reflected inwhat one teaches about it. We are considering an aspect of what is the basis ofresurrectional responsibility which is a direct outgrowth of the Gospel message. We areconsidering an element of God's character and how that is revealed in judgment. We areconsidering the principle of why the resurrection takes place and what principle governs thejudgment meted out there. We are considering the outworking of the Atonement as revealedin resurrectional judgment. We are considering whether an individual who spurns the loveand mercy of God and the sacrifice of Christ has a possibility of escaping the vindication ofthose things at the Judgment Seat of Christ.) Don now introduced his letter dated March 22,1981 entitled "A Minimal Practical Difference." (Note that in paragraphs five and six of thisletter we have a statement which proves that what is being pushed as a basis of reunion isthat it is only a possibility that the enlightened rejecter will be raised. In the very lastparagraph of the letter, paragraph 8, consider the sentence which reads, "Both sides agreethat the unbaptized face the possibility of being raised and that this possibility increases astheir knowledge grows." This statement is not accurate. Unless the unbaptized individual hasthe knowledge and understanding that is required by God for a resurrection unto judgment,then they will not be raised as God distinctly tells us in Ps. 49. This statement is sayingsomething that Christadelphians have never said before as far as I know.)

H. BARTHOLOMEW: The reason why "we press for it" is because it is a first principle! Godhas said it and we honor Him by teaching it.

DICK STONE: It is a first principle! Are we willing to maintain it as such? It does affect us! Ithas an impetus upon the teaching!

H. BARTHOLOMEW: He reminded all that Rom. 2, which sets out the details of resurrectionaljudgment, is the basis of the Atonement which begins to be expounded in Romans 3.

J. HENSLEY: He has contended for many years against the Unamended's teachings,including as recently as a month ago. In our discussions with them we always come down tolight is grounds of resurrectional responsibility being the bottleneck. He then addressed A.

light is grounds of resurrectional responsibility being the bottleneck. He then addressed A.Nicholls and H. Tennant about saying that you can't think about a division when consideringthe acceptability of this agreement. He then stated that this document represents a seriousproblem for if this agreement goes through there will be division. What is going to happen tothose who reject it? Where will we stand in relation to Central? No one in Central wouldobject if we said light is grounds of resurrectional responsibility. If the Unamended don'taccept it, then we have not lost anything, but if they accept it, then you have reunion andstopped a division.

D. STYLES: This agreement is a statement of position that does not hang upon a word hereor there. He can not be put on the spot to make changes, It is unfair to rewrite a document ina forum like this.

J. HENSLEY: He asked Don if he would push this over the heads of individuals who opposedit in order to have reunion by a disunion.

D. STYLES: No! His objective is to hold the Amended together. He is not interested in pushingit over anyone's head.

J. HENSLEY: He referred to the final statement of the Central-Suffolk Street agreement asacceptable. (He used the word "beautiful" as an adjective to describe this agreement.) Heasked how A. Nicholls felt about that statement.

A. NICHOLLS: He stated that he would address John Hensley's questions eventually.

PAUL SCHLICKER: He read a statement that he had written out before. It was an emotionalappeal which I do not believe is scriptural. (I have written Paul for a copy of his statementwhich I will include at the end of the paper.)

A. BRITTLE: He suggested that we find out what the minds of the brethren might be on thissubject. He suggested that more than one document should be sent out to the ecclesias forthe brethren to decide which one they favored. He suggested that they could choose between"The CMPA Document," or "The North American Unity Proposal" and that such a choice wouldbe fairer to the ecclesias.

DICK STONE: He pointed out that we all agree to Point #3 under the section entitled"Responsibility." He then posed the question, "why don't we add to it that God decrees thedegree of knowledge necessary?"

G. COOPER: He stated that he would like to endorse the spirit of what Alvan Brittle had to say,but that he is not sure about the idea of sending out other documents. He thinks we shouldjust send out the present document to the ecclesias to find out what the brethren think aboutit. He suggested a possible three step process, or even the two step process mentioned bysomeone else earlier.

D. SNOBELEN: He stated that his problem is the legal aspect of the agreement. Hesuggested that the more the legalism the greater the confusion. He again suggested thatassociation together brought hearts together. He claimed we have a common cause inChrist! He stated that the legalism is going to drown us. (Note that this is another emotionalappeal. His concept of love is not that which is found in The Scriptures but that which is foundin the world. We demonstrate the love of God by obeying His commandments and from

in the world. We demonstrate the love of God by obeying His commandments and fromseparating from those who do not. He is right when he states that by association together wewill not have to worry about such discussions as are presently taking place. The lack ofseparation and the increase in the toleration of a spectrum of beliefs go hand in hand. Such apolicy will definitely undermine The Truth which is exactly what we are told will happen in theecclesia in the Latter Days. Note, also, that what is being done here is not a legalism thatkills the spirit, but it is an attempt to accurately represent God's clear and unambiguousteaching on this subject. To clearly teach God's Truth does not destroy but breathes spirit intothe teaching of it. Note, also, the assumption of something that still needs proof; namely, thatwe are both in Christ!)

A. NICHOLLS: He is now going to answer the question put to him by John Hensley earlier. Heagrees with what was written in the final statement of the Central Suffolk Street agreement. Ithas a footnote that explains how it is to be interpreted. (Anyone interested in this matter canfind all the information referred to on Pages 230-232 of The Christadelphian Magazine for1956.) He then claimed that whatever was decided here, that is, whether we rejected thisreunion effort or not, he would be put into fellowship with two fellowships. Whatever is donehere, this situation is going to present itself. He stated that even the present unsatisfactorysituation will not be maintained. (We have another assumption here! If this document isrejected, and we have sound leadership, then the worse that can happen is that someAmended would go over to the Unamended and vice-versa. In the end, you will still have thesame two identifiable bodies only some of the names might change. However, if we havereunion on this basis, then both the Unamended and Amended will split having threerecognizable bodies; namely, the Advocates, those who have joined together on this basis,and the Amended. It is obvious that the latter situation is much more complex than thatresulting from maintenance of the clear teaching of The Truth on this subject.) He nowreferred to the minority in the Central-Suffolk Street agreement. (He indicated that the presentdocument is comparable to the original Central-Suffolk Street agreement and that we aregoing down the same road that Great Britain had before the modification. Such reasoningreally worries and disturbs me! I do not accept honest-doubter clauses when it comes to theTruth. Would anyone baptize an individual if they stated that they had some honest doubtsabout some point of truth that we taught? Obviously not! We would attempt to educate themon the point and if that failed to dissolve the doubts, we would refuse to baptize them. If wehad baptized them anyway, then it would be impossible to say that the individual had anythingbut a bath. Furthermore, we would not be responsible before the Judge for such anirresponsible act! Therefore, how can we accept such reasoning on questions of fellowshipwith another group? How can we have unity of mind in such a situation?)

D. STYLES: He stated that we can not go any further than the present document. (All the waythrough this discussion, Don emphasized that this document represents the position of theUnamended and therefore any word changes must be understood that they mean no more tothe Unamended than what is presently being said. He made it quite clear that this is as far asthe Unamended will go on this issue and that they will go no further.)

M. SHRIMPTON: He disagrees with Alvan's point about multiple statements. We don't want toshow a red flag to a bull. He pointed out that the reason why Victoria did not vote down "TheTen Points" is because they thought reunion would be terminated if they voted no. He statedthat we need to free the voting of the fear about it being final. He had to make it clear that thereis a large area of agreement in this document and that the area of disagreement is small.

J. BREWIS: He feels that there is no parallel between the Central-Suffolk Street agreement

J. BREWIS: He feels that there is no parallel between the Central-Suffolk Street agreementand the present document. In the present situation, we do not have a minority within aminority that is being accommodated, but a whole fellowship will be accepted into fellowshipon this reservation.

H. TENNANT: John Carter said that he could accept some people into fellowship who aresaying what the Unamended are saying. John Carter had stated a principle of what he wouldaccept and without reference to how many were involved. It represented an attitude. (Fromthis, it is quite obvious that, no matter how solid an individual may appear to be, he or shemay still and can make mistakes. Brother Carter made a definite mistake here.)

H. BARTHOLOMEW: He asked about the limitation of time! He indicated that there were thosewho had airplane reservations to meet.

FRANK HAUGHTON: He indicated we would adjourn for dinner and reconvene at 7:30 p.m. Hereferred to the voting that would be taking place later on. He pointed out that there would betwo votes per each of the five regions.

FRANK HAUGHTON: He called upon Norman Luff to give the opening prayer for the eveningsession. After the prayer he opened the meeting for further discussion pointing out that afterthe meeting was closed the various delegates would meet according to the regions theybelonged to for voting on the acceptance of this document.

W. BUTTS: He agrees that light is the grounds of resurrectional responsibility is a firstprinciple. However, the Unamended are willing to make this document a first principle.

D. STYLES: He refers to the suggested changes in wording as a distraction. In regards to 1don responsibility, the word "possibility" is not sacrosanct. He then read a series of otherpossible wordings but reminded us that they cannot say anything else. What we are beingasked to consider is a position! If we need a wording change, then it can be done, but it mustbe remembered that the meaning would not change! (The discussion that takes place heregreatly disturbed me for it seemed like a synonymous word was being looked for whichwould make the document palatable and saleable to the Amended ecclesias. In other words,camouflage the meaning by using a word which means the same as "possibility" but doesnot have the sledge hammer impact of the word ''possibility" upon our sensibilities.)

W. BUTTS: He suggested "susceptible" as a substitute for "possibility."

J. HENSLEY: He suggested "amenable."

W. BUTTS: He told John Hensley that that was his buzz word, but that it was not as strong as"susceptible." He told John to read the dictionary.

A. NICHOLLS: In reference to D. Styles' statement that he planned on putting the section onresponsibility into a narrative form he asked Don, when the weaving of it would take place?

M. SHRIMPTON: It is important to determine if this is the only area where there is a problem.

D. STYLES: He pointed out that it was not a quibbling over words that resulted in the 4-3 splitin the vote of the Continental Committee.

in the vote of the Continental Committee.

A. NICHOLLS: He asked, what is the voting taking place on? Is it on the polished document orwhat we have?

DICK STONE: He asked, how can we vote for this document if we are going to have a polisheddocument?

D. STYLES: We can vote on this document because we are voting on a concept and not aparticular form of words. (In other words, this document clearly reveals what the Unamendedbelieve and what we have to accept if we want to fellowship them.)

At this point a discussion took place about the meaning of "susceptible." The word does notindicate that resurrectional judgment is definite.

D. STYLES: The concept is set out clearly and the changing of the words does not change theconcept!

P. ROBINSON: He asked whether it would be possible to change the verses to 1d? (It hasalready been demonstrated that none of these passages were supplied by the Unamendedor interpreted by them like us.)

D. STYLES: You can not for you can not prove the passages prove that enlightened rejecterswill definitely be there. Even in 1 Pet. 4:3-5 you have to assume that they are going to beraised on such a basis.

D. STONE: The passages mean nothing for they refute them all!

F. HAUGHTON now invited A. Nicholls to speak.

A. NICHOLLS: He pointed out that he has not prepared anything. We have to pay attention towhat has been advanced. The Unamended clearly stop short of a point that the Amended sayThe Scriptures go to. If we were being asked to accommodate their doctrine, then I would sayno way. The issue is, can we fellowship someone who has come so close but has honestdoubts about it? He considers that at one point he would have agreed that this was openingthe flood gates to error. How ever, we have to consider the historical record and that indicates"brethren" have always had doubts on this. This problem came to a head, not on this point,but on one compounded with the Atonement. Faced with a similar situation in Great Britain(Central -Suffolk Street), the brethren went down the same road as represented by thisdocument. He wants to allow for the honest doubt on this subject. He did not realize the fullforce of the document that the brethren had originally agreed to in the Central-Suffolk Streetreunion effort until today. He claims that the modification of the original document did notchange the situation. If he was here, he would approve of the going forth of this document.(Note that he clearly says he cannot accommodate their doctrine, but he can fellowship thosewho teach what he cannot accept! How is this possible? This statement clearly indicates thatthere is no unity of mind, so, how can there be unity of body? It would seem to me that hisargument which proves we are not opening the flood gates to error here, in this situation, isdirectly due to the fact that the brethren in England already did it by what they accepted in theirreunion! Note, also that the representation of the historical development of the problemmakes the problem center around the Atonement and not the basis of resurrectionalresponsibility. By compounding the problem, and identifying this new compounded form as

responsibility. By compounding the problem, and identifying this new compounded form asthe problem, it allows us to say the problem is solved when we reduce it back to the originalproblem. It is an attempt to make the responsibility error not a problem at all. Just to set therecord straight on this issue, it was the denial of the true basis of resurrectional responsibilityand the substitution in its place of an erroneous basis, both of which are still true of theUnamended's position to this day, that logically led to a problem with the Atonement. In fact, Ihave shown in my answer to the Unamended's position, circulated last September by Don,that the Thomas Williams' view on this doctrine still affects God-manifestation, theAtonement, and negates the power of the Gospel.)

H. TENNANT: He looked at it very carefully, and searched his conscience before God, anddecided that he could not honestly say that any of our pioneer brethren would say no to thisagreement. (Note the constant subtle reference to "our pioneer brethren" to attempt tostrengthen their case. Obviously those who oppose this document have great respect for thepioneer brethren, therefore by subtly suggesting that the pioneer brethren would support thisdocument an effort is being made to change the minds of those who oppose it.) In regards to,that is, the pioneer brethren, what we say is what they say. We have to sharpen what theysaid! We have the assurance that anything associated with what J. J. Andrew teaches on thissubject will be put out from among them. He agrees with the position of Brother Thomas onthis subject. The area where uncertainty exists is where a certain group is going to end. (Howabout the denial of light being grounds to resurrectional responsibility which is a true andcertain scriptural principle and not a maybe?) His thinking is not the least affected by thisdocument. (It is nice to think this way, but I do not see it as reasonable. If you cannot maintaina first principle and make it a test of fellowship any more, then I do not see how your thinkingcan be anything but affected! Your thinking about it has already changed by what you are nowagreeing to! You are indicating that you no longer consider the Scriptures are clear enough tomake it a first principle and a test of fellowship. You are stating that it is reasonable for aperson to have an honest doubt about the importance or truthfulness of this principle.) Hethen tried to suggest that somebody with a lesser amount of knowledge might appear at thejudgment because they have understood that they have been called and must act. (There aresome problems with such reasoning; namely, many individuals amongst the churches todayhave felt they have been called upon to submit to God and the Lord Jesus Christ and proceedto do as they understand. However, they will not be there because God only calls through theGospel, 2 Thess. 2:14, and that they did not understand. After all, it is only the Gospelperceived that can demonstrate how one must submit to God. Thus if he does notunderstand the Gospel message it is impossible to perceive that God is calling him andwhat He is calling him to. Thus there can be no true submission to God's will, for it is notperceived. Another aspect is that one must realize that they must repent and be baptized to besaved and that this is what God requires. If he does not know what it is that he is to repent of,because he does not understand human nature, and if he does not see the need of baptismor understand its symbolism, then how can such an individual truly realize that God is callinghim to repent and be baptized? Any other feeling is just that, a response of the inneremotions to an outward emotional appeal which takes place at every Pentecostal or BornAgain meeting. Note carefully the wise way in which Clause XXIV was written in light of theabove discussion.) He could not stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ and say that hehad denied them fellowship on this ground. Particularly since we have so many problems ofour own, and since they have some morally good people who would show up some of ourown. (Firstly, why is it sensible to add to our problems because we have problems already?Secondly, isn't this argument about morally good people exactly the one we are so often hitwith by unbelievers?) He was driven down this road against his will. He stated that the CMPA

with by unbelievers?) He was driven down this road against his will. He stated that the CMPAis behind them on this position. He said the situation would get better and not get worse. Hedoes not see it as a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. They are not going to press thispoint. (Note in regards to the last point: why will they have to press it since by this agreementwe have already acknowledged it is valid and scriptural and that our position on responsibilityis going further than the clear teaching of the Scriptures reveal. In regards to the pointprevious to that about his feeling that the situation would get better and not worse, where arehis facts? Such pronouncements are completely contrary to what the Scriptures reveal is theway human nature, or error must be dealt with.)

D. SNOBELEN: He claimed that what is called for in this situation is trust.

J. BREWIS: H. Tennant made a very good case, but there are brethren who in all consciencefeel that the Amended's position is very scriptural and very clear.

H. TENNANT: He can respect John Brewis' conscience, but he could not accept these people(the Unamended) are mocking God. He then proceeded to make an appeal to those whocame from the Bereans, where it was taught that separation was essential if you can't agree.Because of this belief, you have split and split. Please don't approach this problem in thisway. We have to separate out each of these points to see what motivates us.

W. PHILLIPS: He thought the unity exposition of D. Styles was very good. He referred to John17 and 1 Cor. and the statements contained therein on the unity of the body. Unity helps thewalk to the Kingdom. He reminded us that we have to stand before the Lord and give ouraccount of our stewardship. Are we going to have to give an answer for quibbling over a word.Have we ever been able to teach any the Truth by not associating with them? He reminded usabout deserting the flock. If our wife, or some other member of our family, accepted thisdocument, then would we withdraw from them? We are going to answer at the JudgmentSeat! (Note the assumption that is the foundation of his logic; namely, that they are part of thebody. Again, it is emphasized that this must be proved! Note, also, how there is an appeal toemotionalism and the flesh and blood associations. Such reasoning is completely foreign tothe Scriptures. Matt. 10:35-37; Matt. 19:29; Mk. 10:29-30; Lk. 12:51-53; 14:26; John 6:63; Rom.9:8; 1 Cor. 15:50.)

ASHLEY HIGHAM: He reminded H. Tennant that he was a Berean for 25 years and never didthey split. In addition, they had a reunion.

F. HAUGHTON: He agreed with H. Tennant.

J. BREWIS: He seconded Ashley's statement. He could remember no split and then anothersplit, but he did remember the reunion.

P. ROBINSON: He reminded us of the history of compromise. He reminded us for example ofthe development of the apostacy in the first century ecclesia and on. We are all aware thatthere are those who can not agree with the wording of this document. He suggested weremove 1d and replace it with, "All who reject the light will face resurrectional judgment," andback it up with Scripture. He suggested that this would eventually lead to a coming togetheron what is true. (The implications of his opening statement are obvious!)

F. HAUGHTON: He asked D. Styles if we could make such a change.

D. STYLES: We cannot as was said earlier. This session will either draw to an end with theacceptance or rejection of this document. He suggested that maybe in two or three years abetter statement might be arrived at. The Unamended committee has stated that this is as faras they will go. If this is voted down, then the reunion effort is to be disbanded and lateranother effort could be started by another group of people.

JIM STYLES: We have to talk about the position and not about changing words. We have todecide whether we are going to fellowship this position or not.

W. SCOTT: We think that this document outlines their position very well.

R. STYLES: If we went around the table, then we would have twenty different interpretations.

D. STYLES: He wanted to know how we can be any clearer! He thinks the "Foreward" is veryclear.

R. STYLES: We have to decide on this position.

W. SCOTT: He wants to adjourn the meeting so that the regional caucuses can get togetherto decide how they are going to vote. He stated that we would be voting on whether to acceptthe North American Unity Agreement and to recommend it to the ecclesias as a basis forreunion. He feels the statement is very clear. He told us to discuss and prepare to vote on ittomorrow. If it is accepted, then a letter must be sent saying so to the ecclesias. If it is not,then we have to decide where it goes from here.

D. SNOBELEN: He says the Unamended members of his family are willing to leave a part oftheir group behind for this document. (Note the flesh and blood connections again!)

J. HENSLEY: He asked H. Tennant, what does it mean when it says in Clause XXIV, "callsupon to submit"?

H. TENNANT: God does the calling. It is possible to get a very good knowledge but whichmeans nothing for it is not believed. Whereas somebody might not have such anunderstanding yet feel the call strongly.

DICK STONE: You mean God only calls by the Word?

H. TENNANT: Yes!

P. ROBINSON: He asked H. Tennant how he defined light.

H. TENNANT: It is knowledge and understanding of the Truth that requires a response whichmeans responsibility to resurrectional judgment. A denial of that is very serious.

A. NICHOLLS: It is a recognition of the command to repent which means that they havespurned the command if they do not positively respond.

D. STYLES: We can look at it from our side of the fence but it is a little more difficult to see theUnamended's side. As long as the Amended insist that the Unamended come over to their

Unamended's side. As long as the Amended insist that the Unamended come over to theirview, they have given them the way out.

A. BRITTLE: The purpose of coming here is to see if we can get a consensus. Why should aword that could lead to a consensus put it out?

D. STYLES: He pointed out that he has the go ahead to change the word, but why, for it doesnot change the view. He would allow Alvan to change the word to "susceptible." However, heemphasized that the Unamended do not want us to get the wrong idea about what is meant.He stated that he thought a bit of ambiguity is proper in such a document. (Why is it proper?Shouldn't God's Truth be clearly revealed? The only thing ambiguity is good for is to cover upareas of disagreement to permit a facade of unity to exist where in fact it does not.)

F. HAUGHTON: He suggested closing the meeting at this point.

W. BUTTS: He suggested that if somebody has not spoken yet, then let them do so now.

K. STYLES: He reminded us of the Unamended's position ten years ago. He then wanted tobe informed of the growth in their position for he did not see any.

D. STYLES: There really isn't any! It is just a leaning! There is no dramatic change from theirposition of ten years ago. What we have done is to clarify the various fears. (In fact, therehasn't been any real growth since at least 1902! See page 565 of the 1902 ChristadelphianMagazine.)

DICK STONE: Why do they say that baptism is the grounds of resurrection?

D. STYLES: Because it relates an individual to the covenant and thus to a determination ofwhether he was faithful. The reason why the unbaptized are raised is to punish them not tojudge them.

TED SLEEPER: He agreed that D. Styles' answer was reasonable.

DICK STONE: That reeks of that which J. J. Andrew and Thomas Williams taught.

TED SLEEPER: It emphasizes the purpose for judgment.

DICK STONE: I am not talking about the purpose, but the basis of resurrection.

TED SLEEPER: They (the Unamended) don't have a defined doctrine of the basis. (Pleasenote this point, for we are abandoning our clear scriptural basis for a non-basis.)

DICK STONE: He reminded all about the aspect of the admonition contained in theconsequences associated with responsibility and judgment.

W. PHILLIPS: That is not a good reason. You would not tell teenagers such a thing; you wouldtalk about the hope (and the joy of the Kingdom?).

DICK STONE: It's a fact and used by Paul!

TED SLEEPER: Both reasons are there!

TED SLEEPER: Both reasons are there!

DICK STONE: They are both good reasons because they are both there!

D. STYLES: This is a matter of fellowship. He claimed that it is not clearly taught in theScriptures! (Such a statement represents a capitulation to the Unamended's position! Nowonder why he finds this document acceptable!)

TED SLEEPER: I really do have a feeling for Dick's position, but have come to H. Tennant'sposition. What harm is it going to cause to fellowship these people? Where is this tragicserious first principle error that is going to destroy the Truth? (It can't be seen if one iswillingly blinding oneself to it!)

F. HAUGHTON: We will meet tomorrow at 9:00 a.m.

SATURDAY, MARCH 28, 1981

F. Haughton called upon Dick Stone to open in prayer. Afterwards he read the propositionupon which we had voted in our regions on the previous night. It said, '"We move to accept theNorth American Unity Proposal and commend it to the ecclesias as a basis for reunion."

GEORGE CARRICK: In the regional caucus we took the view that only the delegates shouldvote and that it was unethical to let observers vote. We figure that in that manner the votecould be weighted in favor of an opinion.

H. BARTHOLOMEW: There is a question as to what is a delegate. We had regional as well asecclesial delegates that voted.

F. HAUGHTON: Only the regional delegates and the continental committee members shouldhave voted.

D. STONE: It is over and it remains according to what was decided.

F. HAUGHTON: He called for the regional votes.

251/2 (.6)2.17

1-1/2 (1.4)7.83

Midwest

122/31-1/3Ontario

\ 1 1 Mid-Atlantic

1902 West Coast

0 2 New England

REJECTTOTAL

ACCEPTTOTALTO REJECTTO ACCEPT

It is pointed out that some of the people voted having in mind that the word "possible" would

It is pointed out that some of the people voted having in mind that the word "possible" wouldbe substituted by a word such as "susceptible."

D. STYLES: Presented a discussion of Implementation.

1. A joint implementation committee made up of both Amended and Unamended would beappointed.

2. The working out of wording changes with the Unamended:

a. First sentence of nature of man clause.b. First sentence of the Preamble.c. Drop Appendices.d. Revision in the responsibility section and putting it into a narrative form whichis better.

3. The revised document would go out to the ecclesias accompanied by a covering letter.

4. The Implementation Committee would workout how brethren would go out to explain thisdocument and to answer questions.

5. More than likely there would be a series of letters put out by the ImplementationCommittee.

6. Implementation Committee would be responsible to be sensitive to the problems of theUnamended.

7. If there was a favorable vote from the eccesias, then implementation would have to beworked out.

8. There will be an awkward period where some ecclesias have accepted and some haverejected.

9. A great attempt must be made to keep people from panicking.

10. The magazines (The Tidings and The Advocate) would have to work out the problem ofdealing with the situation. The Advocate might stay with the Andrewites and then there wouldbe no problem.

11. We need a time limit. (This point was suggested to Don by Dick).

R. STYLES: A vote for it is a vote for reunion.

D. STYLES: The Unamended Committee voted sixteen to one for this document.

BOB BRINKERHOFF: This vote was a vote for a basis and not for reunion. (An artificialdistinction really for if you vote for it as a basis, then you have accepted reunion!)

A. NICHOLLS: He read the letter that went out at this point in the reunion effort betweenCentral and Suffolk Street. (It is found in the October 1955 Christadelphian Magazine pages

Central and Suffolk Street. (It is found in the October 1955 Christadelphian Magazine pages389-390.)

F. HAUGHTON: He reminded us that we are not talking about the document now, but aboutimplementation. He stated that we will have to form a committee for implementation.

B. PEARSE: He read a letter directed to the Continental Committee, from Bro. Andrew Webb,in which it was asked that they would not send circular letters against the document. It wasnot against personal opinion when asked, but against circular letters.

JOHN BREWIS: He would be able to go along as long as the door wasn't closed to furtherdiscussions in order to arrive at a better document. He was of the opinion that you accept thisor else.

DICK STONE: He asked are we going to send the vote out as is, or would John like to changehis vote?

JOHN BREWIS: He would not vote differently because he voted scripturally. He will listen toreason if he can be shown.

W. SCOTT: He suggested adjourning the meeting and having just the Continental Committeemeet.

F. HAUGHTON: He stated that he was resigning. He felt a younger individual more in line withthe present trend should replace him. He stated that we owe a great deal of thanks to D.Styles.

R. STYLES: He stated that F. Haughton had done a very good job the past three days and thatothers felt the same way.

F. HAUGHTON: He thanked A. Nicholls and H. Tennant for their part. He stated that hebelieves the good hand of God has brought us to this point we are at now. (How could Godbe responsible for a possible reunion on an erroneous basis? The Scriptures indicate thatthe Latter Days will be a period that will see the demise of The Truth because oflukewarmness, apathy, toleration, affluence, and unwillingness to contend for the Truth! IsGod responsible for this situation when it develops? Obviously not! Therefore a reunion on abasis which all acknowledge is not what they would like, but is the best that they can get, andwhich reduces a first principle to secondary status seems to clearly indicate that the goodhand of God has not done it.)

F. Haughton asks H. Tennant to close in prayer.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE and TEXT supplied by Paul Schlicker.

I requested to approach the table because it would make it easier for me to deliver myremarks. After thanking the brethren for the opportunity to speak, and acknowledging that,except for Ken Styles who had just entered, I was probably the most junior of all present, Iindicated that what I would say would be read from a prepared text because of the advantageof measured or considered thought. Actually, I may have expressed that latter considerationin terms of wishing to avoid any statement made in the heat of the moment.

in terms of wishing to avoid any statement made in the heat of the moment.

TEXT:

Dear Elder Brethren, who I esteem as laborers in the Word, I count myself blessed to be ableto address you in this solemn hour. In permitting all of us to speak, you have spoken to us thewords of the Judges: "Consider of it, take advice, and speak your minds." What I say, then, isa heartfelt appeal which, no doubt, is being made for the thousandth time; but privateconscience compels, as I am sure you can understand.

This appeal is from one who has had reason to shed tears over the division of those on thiscontinent who share the name Christadelphian. I have beloved relatives, after the flesh, in theUnamended community, as some of you. And you too, all of you, whether in this position ornot, have shed tears. However, though these more poignant elements are in my background,I have ever been ill-disposed toward decisions made in our roles as stewards of the GoodGifts of God on the basis of empty emotionalism. My inclination, as perhaps the few of youwho know me are aware, is away from the maudlin, and toward the austere.

This too must be said: Like all of you, I would hold a reunion of our divided Householdundertaken at any cost to be repugnant, unconscionable, and a tragic betrayal of our heritage.

Now the heart of my appeal. You are a uniquely mandated eldership in an agonizingdeliberation. I would beseech you, in your individual Gethsemanes, to ponder yet once morethe timeless spiritual problem of choosing between two courses, one of which may err on theside of judgment, the other of which may err on the side of leniency, even mercy. I imploreeach one that, in your musings, the most searching examination possible be made again, ineach heart and mind, for an answer to this question: What is the dominant spirit, thedominant spirit, of God's counsel concerning which of these two errors, when found in us, isless likely to stand in defiance of the Father's declaration of His Name and character? I leaveit with you all.

You all know of the profound disappointment that would attend your resigned abandonmentof a noble cause, if indeed you decide that you must let the matter die. That cause is Unity, acessation of strife, strife which will never fail to be prolific in justifying its continued existence.Reconciliation - this principle is the atonement's heart. Though your labor will have beenvaliantly borne, grief over a stillborn child will not readily wear away and be forgotten.

There are two contending impulses, I think, at work in those who disagree over thisdocument. On one hand, we have those who fear a "Domino Principle" in the fall of Truth, whofear the power of degeneration in human nature. And while that can be a healthy fear, yet, inthe eyes of others, these brethren seem to have an almost instinctive, reflex-like resistance toa proposal that, to them, falls short of extracting the last clarification in pristine terms.Perhaps, in their resistance, they see themselves as Moses, who stood on one side of thegate beholding brethren on the other side. And some on the other side, who are known toagree totally with us, are exhorted to courage: "Who so is on the Lord's side, let him come tous!"

On the other hand are those with whom I would prefer to stand in this context, who, in the lightof past divisions, reunions, and their impact for good or ill on doctrinal degeneration over thelong haul, would exhort you to have the courage that you urge upon the Unamended brethren.Do not unkindly use the brethren by fearing that they will insidiously exploit every apparent

Do not unkindly use the brethren by fearing that they will insidiously exploit every apparentloophole in the document. You yourselves, individually and collectively, have been the victimsof unkind suspicions. Remember that a God with great powers to preserve what He wantspreserved, still presides over those who fear, and those who trust. "Withhold not good fromthem to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it."

Love and compassion are not defects of character as some seem to suggest inexasperation, and almost a sneer. A superabundance of these qualities, when genuine,need never be feared. You all know full well, that our natures never really exhibit thesequalities to excess. You know it. Do we live in a household where these qualities must betolerated with gritted teeth? Where we skeptically look at Brother "A," whose mushinessdisturbs us, and say: "Well, it takes all kinds."? Have we come to that? We must rememberthat were it not for the "excess" of love in one man, an excess that made his contemporariesthink Him mad, we would not bear the name Christadelphian at all.

Consider: it may be an "excess" of obedience to be reconciled, and not emotion.

I close my appeal now. Take the document, tighten its weak links as you feel you must, andas you feel you are able. Make it readable, not fearing a reopening of Pandora's Box. Make itswords sing as well as its substance. Tell the difference between principal, "pal," andprinciple, "ple." Collectively commend or refuse to commend it, as you will, in mercifully briefterms. And then pledge yourselves to desist from agitation, for or against, in the public fora ofthis body, or privately through the mail. In this, you will trust the judgment of those by whomyou were appointed. In this, you would re-affirm your willingness to leave to the Father'sdisposal the lot which must be cast into the body's lap.

Thanks for listening

The first point I would like to address myself to is that contained in the fourth paragraph of thetext by Brother Paul Schlicker. He exhorts us to consider whether erring on the side ofjudgment or mercy would be more acceptable to God. In fact, to ask the question is to answerit if one pays attention to the terms used. Unfortunately, we tend to stray from the scripturalusage of terms at times! Scripturally speaking, "mercy" is something which is extended to arepentant sinner. Without repentance on the part of the individual or individuals involved, then"mercy" can not be extended. It is for this reason that Christ gave the parable about thepublican and the Pharisee who went to the temple to pray. Luke 18:9-14. Note the intricateconnection between "mercy" and "repentance" in such passages as Matt. 9:13; Luke15:7;17:3-4. Note, also, Christ's admonition to the Pharisees in Matt. 23:23; "Woe unto you,Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and haveomitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to havedone, and not to leave the other undone." Here we have a divine listing of "the weightiermatters of the law;" namely, "judgment, mercy, and faith," which we can not and must notleave undone! What was the first item on that list? Obviously judgment for wise decisions arenecessary in order to wisely guide the flock. Thus even though "mercy rejoiceth againstjudgment" James 2:13, the exercise of "mercy" is founded upon judgment and can only bescripturally exercised where there is repentance. Obviously then, it is not a matter of "mercy"where there is no repentance! When an individual commits a sin or goes astray on doctrine,"mercy" can only be extended when he acknowledges the wrongness of his actions ordoctrines and returns to that which is right. When an action or doctrine is continuously

doctrines and returns to that which is right. When an action or doctrine is continuouslymaintained, then there is no room for "mercy" since there is no "repentance," and thus thereis no room for "erring on the side of mercy." To err on the side of mercy, there first has to be astate of repentance in an area where extending fellowship to those involved might bequestionable. For example, a brother might commit adultery, divorce his sister wife, andmarry an alien and then present himself as a repentant sinner to some ecclesia. Just how torightly handle such a case is very difficult, but someone might argue that since he appears totruly be repentant, and that the final judgment will be made by Christ, that, therefore, it isbetter to err on the side of mercy than judgment in such a case. However, in the presentsituation it is not a matter of "mercy" for a case of "repentance" is not being considered. Whatis being considered is whether a document which does not represent the Truth onresponsibility can be accepted as a sound basis of reunion and thus fellowship. As wasemphasized at the meeting, this decision is a case of judgment! We either find the positiondoctrinally sound and acceptable, or we do not! If we find it doctrinally unsound, then it is not amatter of "erring on the side of mercy" that is involved, but of the necessity of rejecting thatwhich is erroneous. It is not "erring on the side of mercy" to let error continue in our midst, butit is a case of Laodicean Lukewarmness which is apathetic and tolerant of error. Separationfrom doctrinal error is not just the wise thing to do, but it is a divine command runningthroughout all of the Word of God. It is when error is tolerated that the Truth is undermined ashistory, as well as, the Scriptures only too clearly prove!

The next point that I would like to consider is that contained in his sixth paragraph wherethose who insist on clarity in the presentation of the Truth in our statement of faith aredismissed as essentially picayune. Such reasoning does not dismiss them or what theystand for by anyone who is objective. It is absolutely essential that our statement of faithshould be clear, having no ambiguity or doubts, and must be scripturally sound. The NorthAmerican Unity proposal removes Clause XXIV of the B.A.S.F., which has all of the abovecriteria, and replaces it with something which is not scripturally sound and contains doubt aswell as ambiguity. How can any one who believes Clause XXIV to be a first principle, ormaintains that the North American Unity Proposal is unscriptural, support the North AmericanUnity Proposal as a basis of fellowship? If they are logical and objective, then they can notsupport it.

Now consider the very next paragraph in this text. It is not a matter of fearing the exploitation ofloopholes in the document by the Unamended, it is a matter of accurately representing andteaching God's revealed will! To teach less than His revealed will is to dishonor Him! Not onlythat, it is not a matter of looking through the document to find out where somebody might goastray, but it is a looking at the document to see whether it is excluding error that we alreadyknow exists and want to make sure is excluded from coming back into our fellowship.Furthermore, even though God is omnipotent, He will not prevent man from exercising hiswill. He will not prevent a community from corrupting their understanding of the Truth, but willmove to preserve the Truth itself. Both the Word of God, and history reveal that the abovestatement is a fact and not more speculation. It is not until the return of the Lord Jesus Christto this earth that God will force man to worship Him in the way appointed. Thus, if we got tobelieve less than the Truth, then it is we who suffer and not the Truth. Somewhere there willalways be those who maintain the Truth in all its purity, therefore, divine providence, in thepreservation of the Truth, is manifested, but it is not manifested in preserving it in acommunity which willfully rejects it.

In the very next paragraph, it is stated, "Love and compassion are not defects of character as

In the very next paragraph, it is stated, "Love and compassion are not defects of character assome seem to suggest in exasperation, and almost a sneer." All acknowledge that scriptural"love and compassion are not defects of character" and not something which exasperates oris thought of lightly! However, I must emphasize that it is SCRIPTURAL love and compassionand not that which passes current in the world! We manifest love towards God by obeying Hiscommandments. John 14:23-24; 15:14; 1 John 2:5 etc. We manifest love towards ourbrethren by revealing that very same love towards them! 1 John 4:7-5:4. Note that 1 John 4opens up by demonstrating the necessity of identifying that which is right from that which iswrong and that which is the Truth from that which is error! We can not express the "love" of theWord of God towards an individual unless we know and understand and obey Hiscommandments ourselves FIRST. We then can manifest that love towards others. Thus, thelove of God does not include the tolerance of error, and can not exist in those individuals whotolerate it! It can not "be an 'excess' of obedience to be reconciled" where Hiscommandments are denied by a document which does not uphold His Truth. Obedience tosuch a document is disobedience to God! Therefore, it only leaves the other alternative, andthat is, an 'excess' of emotion if reconciliation is sought on such a basis.

The closing comment seems to be an appeal to muzzle any stance, on one side or the otherof this issue, which is completely contrary to what the Scriptures command. Consider suchpassages as Eph. 6:12-18; 1 Tim. 6:12; 2 Tim. 2:3-4; 2 Tim. 4:7; Jude 3, etc. We must holdthat fast which we have and not let any man take our crown! Rev. 3:11 --

Julio B. ScaramastroMarch 27, 1981

LIST OF SUGGESTED READING MATERIALS

Berean Magazine, August 1980, pages 264-275

Christadelphian, 1899, Inside Front cover, "K.K."

Christadelphian, 1899, Pages 212-213, "United States -- Chicago, Illinois"

Christadelphian, 1899, pages 36-38, "Some Views On Matters Ecclesial"

Christadelphian, 1900, page 92, "Meditations - No. 56"

Christadelphian, 1900, pages 139-141, "The Ground of Judgment"

Christadelphian, 1900, pages 428-429, "As Others See Us"

Christadelphian, 1900, pages 463-465, "Condemnation and Forgiveness"

Christadelphian, 1900, pages 507-508, "The Questions of Ressurectional Responsibilityin 1882"

Christadelphian, 1901, pages 45-46, "Meditations - No. 63"

Christadelphian, 1902, pages 40-42, "The Responsibility Question in Yorkshire"

Christadelphian, 1902, pages 375-376, "A Discarded Opinion"

Christadelphian, 1902, pages 376-377, "A Canadian Declaration"

Christadelphian, 1902, pages 564-565

Christadelphian, 1903, page 85, "Taking A Look Around"

Christadelphian, 1903, pages 311-312, "Questions on Ressurection and Responsibility"

Christadelphian, 1903, pages 260-263, "Presumptuous Sin"

Christadelphian, 1908, pages 136-137, "The Responsibility Controversy"

Christadelphian, 1908, pages 136-137, "The Responsibility Controversy"

Christadelphian, 1952, pages 46-49, J. Carter - "Review - The World's Redemption"

Christadelphian, 1952, pages 71-72, J.Carter - "Knowledge and Responsibility (1)"

Christadelphian, 1952, pages 109-112, J.Carter - "Knowledge and Responsibility"

Christadelphian, 1952, pages 214-215, "The Fraternal Visitor and Reunion Discussions"

Christadelphian, 1952, page 215, "Statement of Faith"

Christadelphian, 1952, page 279, "The 'Amended' Statement of Faith"

Christadelphian, 1952, page 377, "Visit To United States and Canada"

Christadelphian, 1968, pages 8-11, L.G. Sargent - "Judgment To Come"

Christadelphian, 1968, pages 52-54, "Judgment To Come"

Christadelphian, 1968, pages 103-105, "Judgment To Come"

Christadelphian, 1968, pages 410-413, "Fellowship And Reunion Efforts In America"

Berean Magazine, May 1951, pages 141-144, "Resurrectional Responsibility"

Berean Magazine, June 1951, pages 182-185, "Resurrectional Responsibility"

Berean Magazine, July 1951, pages 215-219, "Resurrectional Responsibility"

Berean Magazine, August 1951, pages 249-252, "Resurrectional Responsibility"

Berean Magazine, September 1951, pages 273-276, "Resurrectional Responsibility"

Berean Magazine, October 1951, pages 303-306, "Resurrectional Responsibility"

Berean Magazine, November 1951, pages 328-331, "Resurrectional Responsibility"

A.G. Jannaway, "Grounds of Resurrectional Responsibility Responsibility"

R. Roberts-Andrew Debate, "Resurrectional Responsibility Debate"

John Thomas, "Anastasis" and "The Revealed Mystery"

"Knowledge Is The Basis of Resurrectional Responsibility" booklet

TOP | HOME | THE MAGAZINE | PROPHECY/NEWS | BOOKS/BOOKLETS | EMAIL | SITE MAPhttp://www.antipas.org | email: jbs@antipas.org