This dialog appeared in the Christadelphian of 1892. It's in answer to an unsound pamphlet, taken sentence by sentence. The pamphlet's statements are prefixed by "F:" for "False". The scriptural replies are prefixed by "T:" for "True." The pamphlet argues that breaking of bread is not "fellowship," that breaking bread with and/or fellowshipping errorists is not unscriptural, and that "fellowship" is actually something beyond our control (if we're in agreement, we're "in fellowship"; if we're not, we're not; we can't control it, and need not worry about it.) It is not consistent, admitting some things it elsewhere denies. Though it disagrees violently with it, it clearly recognizes and concedes what was the established Christadelphian position on fellowship up to that time, and herein it is a valuable testimony. It is quite clear, both from the admissions in the pamphlet, and the answers for the Truth, that the accepted Christadelphian belief then was, and regularly had been-
1. It is wrong to fellowship those who fellowship error.
2. Breaking of bread is inseparable from fellowship, and is the "highest act of fellowship possible" (Bro. Roberts), involving "God speed" to those participated with.
3. Breaking bread with known errorists involves us in responsibility for their errors.
This is what is being objected to. This is what is being defended as established Bible truth.
- Bro. G.V. Growcott
T: In many cases we have to refuse fellowship to those we hope to see accepted by-and-by through the mercy of God. But it would not be scriptural to allow this hope to be the ground of fellowship.
F: I cannot agree. I only hope to see men in the Kingdom when I believe there is some possibility of them being there. When I could see NO reason for hoping, THERE I should refuse fellowship, but NOWHERE ELSE.
T: Your contention that in fellowshipping others we incur no responsibility for their actions or beliefs is quite opposed to Bible teaching, and some of your admissions will help make such manifest. We shall confine our remarks to points on which you are at issue with us, as there are many statements in your pamphlet which we do not question. Now for your first complaint.
F: I believe fellowship is a subject that has really received very little consideration, and consequently is but imperfectly understood.
T: Speaking of the ecclesias with which we have been connected for 17 years, we can truly say that "fellowship" has repeatedly been most thoroughly discussed-as much if not more so-than any other doctrine.
F: Among the voluminous literature dealing with almost every phase of the Truth, the doctrine of fellowship has been given little or no place.
T: That is not true. The doctrine of fellowship has been given a large place in the Christadelphian, especially when false brethren have introduced heresy.
F: I have come to the conclusion that our understanding of the doctrine of fellowship is radically unsound. First of all, and in order that its bearings may be fully appreciated, it will be better to give some sort of a definition of fellowship as it is generally understood by us. It is usually believed to consist of the act of breaking bread and drinking wine in memory of the death of our Lord, and in recognition of our adoption into the family of God.
T: Nonsense! That "fellowship consists of this act" is not usually believed by us. In fact, you are the only person we ever heard had such an idea and a moment's reflection will make manifest your error. For if fellowship "consists of this act," then fellowship only exists between those who have actually met together, and thus we should have no fellowship with our brethren abroad.
You must know we do not so believe or teach! We also have fellowship with God and with Christ without the act of breaking bread (see 1 John 1-3).
F: It is usually believed that in this act of fellowship we bid God speed to all with whom we partake of the sacrificial emblems.
T: True. WE DO SO BELIEVE. And when you give reason for believing otherwise, we will deal with such, and give you testimony to support our belief. We shall also have something to say of our belief that breaking of bread is simply an act of fellowship, and not its sum total. But go on.
F: It is usually believed that we involve ourselves in the responsibility of errors of belief that may be held by them, or unrighteous conduct that they may practice.
T: True also: provided 1) that the errors affect first principles; 2) that the unrighteous conduct has not been repented of; and 3) that we are aware of such errors of belief and conduct.
F: And we have refused to break bread with brethren whose faith we know to be identically our own, because they are not prepared to disconnect themselves from others who hold an error of belief upon some point or other.
T: If by "some point or other" you mean such errors as just referred to, we are justified in so refusing, and the grounds for such refusal will be manifest as we proceed with our arguments.
F: Our fear has been that the responsibility of error would be transmitted to us through the medium of someone who had himself become subject to that responsibility through the act of fellowship.
T: What do you mean by "responsibility transmitted"?
F: That evil, either of faith or practice, is conveyed from one to another by the act of breaking bread, much in the same way as uncleanness was conveyed from the leper through another who came into personal contact with him, to a third person, a fourth, and so on.
T: Your understanding of the matter is not correct. As to responsibility being "transmitted" through mediums, we have never held any such idea. A man is only responsible for his own errors (and quite enough, too). We believe that if he knowingly fellowships false teachers, he is responsible for so doing. But that is a very different thing from having the particular evil of such teachers "transmitted" to him.
F: Now, if this principle be a true one, it...
T: But we have not contended it is; and therefore there is no need to speculate as to where it leads, or what the results may be of applying such a principle.
F: It has led to the severing of the Brotherhood.
T: As the principle has no existence with us, it cannot lead us to anything. What has led to the severance of the Brotherhood is the fact of certain ones bringing into its midst ideas contrary to sound doctrine (1 Tim. 1:10), thus causing division-which has been ended by the earnest contenders of the Faith withdrawing themselves (2 Thess. 3:6), marking those who have caused the division (Rom. 16:17).
F: It is continually troubling us with questions of an aggravating character that prevent us occupying our whole time in building ourselves up in the Faith.
T: Surely you fail to recognize what's included in that "building up". A scamping builder is not particular as to what material he uses. A wise builder uses only that which will meet with the architect's approval. So a faithful workman in assisting to build up the spiritual Temple (2 Cor. 6:16) will scrupulously avoid compromising the work by using what he believes the Divine Architect does not approve of. The work is not ours but His. It must be done according to His specifications: wind- and water-proof (Matt. 7:24-29). As to the disastrous effect a little bad material will have on even a large building, you will do well to read 1 Cor. 5:1-11, and such like testimony.
F: We spend too much time in considering whom we ought to admit to be in faithful service to Christ.
T: In view of your circumscribed ideas of "building up," doubtless you think so.
F: And leave too little time to do our own faithfully and well.
T: We have already seen that to be faithful needs our doing what you condemn.
F: The way out of this difficulty we believe to be through an acknowledgment that this doctrine of fellowship just mentioned (which is responsible for such a lamentable state of things) is a false doctrine.
T: In your desire to avoid unpleasantness, you would purchase peace at the expense of purity. Christ will not countenance this. He would prefer that sword separate father from son, than that such a price should be paid. Yea, he predicted that such would be the case (Matt. 10:34-35). When trouble arises through faithfulness to the doctrines of Christ, it would be an easy "way out of the difficulty" to conclude that those doctrines were false, and thus (but only for the present) avoid a "lamentable state of things." But "in all things consider the end." Wise men will do so, always bearing in mind that "through much tribulation we must enter the Kingdom."
F: Actions which have been done upon its basis are steps in the wrong direction which have brought us into a position that is altogether unjustifiable, and must be displeasing in God's sight. But it is not enough that we should say this. We must show that this doctrine of fellowship is unscriptural, and also what the Bible really does teach upon the subject.
T: That is true; to "say" is not enough.
F: The word "fellowship" occurs 17 times in the Bible, but not in one instance is it used as meaning the act of breaking bread.
T: That is denying what isn't affirmed. The converse is what we believe; that breaking of bread is fellowship, one of the highest forms of it, in fact. But this is a very different thing from what you are opposing. If you said an oak was a noble tree, and we began in opposition to show you that all noble trees were not oaks, you would conclude we were ignorant of the most elementary logic. Your denial is on a par with this illustration.
F: The original word translated "fellowship" is given in a lexicon as "companionship, agreement, or communion."
T: That's just how we understand it, provided the idea of "distribution" is combined therewith. The Greek word is so rendered in 2 Cor. 9:13. This goes to show the permeating character of fellowship.
F: We are told in Acts 2:41-42, "There were added unto the church about 3000 souls, and they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine, and in fellowship, AND in breaking of bread, and in prayers." This of itself is sufficient to show that fellowship is not breaking of bread, for the two things are separately spoken of.
T: Quite so. The converse of your statement is what we impugn.
F: And are as distinct as the two others mentioned: the apostles' doctrine and prayers.
T: In a sense, yes. But from the Bible point of view, they cannot be separated. They stand or fall together. True fellowship, like true charity, comprises many items, but consists in no individual one.
F: In 1 Cor. 10, we are taught the true distinction between breaking of bread and fellowship, for the apostle plainly declares that the one is the representation or acknowledgment of the other.
T: Quite true! And you will do well to note and bear in mind the two admissions involved in your statement: 1) that we must not separate the breaking of bread from the fellowship which it "represents"; and 2) that when we break bread it is "an acknowledgment" that fellowship exists.
F: Verse 20 confirms this idea, for he wrote that "the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils and not to God, and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils."
T: That completely overthrows your contention that we do not involve ourselves in the errors (of belief or practice) of those with whom we partake of the sacrificial emblems. Here Paul distinctly counsels them NOT to "fellowship devils" BY eating and drinking to them.
F: But they could not break bread and drink wine with devils.
T: Just so! And therefore the way in which these Corinthians could "fellowship devils" was by breaking bread and drinking wine with those who BELIEVED in the devils, and in that manner they would involve themselves in the errors of devil worshipers. Thus it is plain from Paul that to "fellowship" anything does not necessitate personal communion. A profession of agreement with their votaries is all-sufficient, and such profession you have already admitted is found in breaking bread with them. Moreover, Paul in this chapter (1 Cor. 10:18) plainly declares that those who eat DO thereby "fellowship." (The AV reads "partakes," but the original word is the same as is translated "fellowship" in verse 20.)
F: In 2 Cor. 8:4 we have the word "fellowship" used with apparently a still different meaning. Writing of the churches of Macedonia, Paul said, "To their power I bear record-yea, and beyond their power-they were willing of themselves, praying us with much entreaty that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints." Here a certain office or capacity appears to be spoken of. It is manifest that the ordinance of breaking of bread can have no reference to Paul's words here.
T: If you would but recognize that breaking of bread is but ONE of many forms of fellowship, these passages would all become plain to you. The word in the text you quote is, as we have already said, rendered in v. 13 of the next chapter, "distribution," which is another form of "fellowship" among the saints.
F: We have probably adduced sufficient passages to prove our point: that the word "fellowship," as used in the Scriptures, is not an equivalent of the act of breaking bread.
T: You have not adduced a single passage that proves we are wrong in maintaining that to "break bread and drink wine" in remembrance of Christ is a form of fellowship, by reason of being the "acknowledgment" of such.
F: We admit that the ordinance instituted by Christ is an acknowledgment, or an outward sign, of fellowship-but it is not the thing itself.
T: True, the ordinance of breaking bread is not the sum total of fellowship. But, nevertheless, it is "an act of fellowship," as you (no doubt unwittingly) have admitted. Paul's reasoning with regards to the body and its many members forcibly applies to your mode of argument (1 Cor. 12:14). Although the whole body be not simply the eye or the ear, yet both form portions of the body. So, the fellowship be not simply "breaking of bread" or "prayers," yet both form important elements of it.
F: Fellowship is a matter entirely beyond our control; and there is NO MEANING in our words when we say we will "fellowship" this brother, and we will not "fellowship" another.
T: If your statement is true, then we must deprive the early Christians of any merit in continuing "steadfastly in fellowship" (Acts 2:42), for according to you, to do otherwise was "beyond their control." Paul says, "To do good and communicate (original: fellowship) forget not, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased." Your statement teaches that we need no reminding to fellowship, as to do otherwise is "beyond our control." And for the same reason, there can be no "sacrifice" in the matter, and therefore God is simply well pleased with our doing a thing we cannot help doing, as it is "beyond our control" to do otherwise.
F: Brethren who believe the same Gospel and are working in the service of Christ ARE in fellowship with each other.
T: True.
F: Their common faith and common labor constitute that fellowship, and it cannot exist without them.
T: True-always remembering that such common labor includes "assembling together" and "eating" of the sacrificial emblems when circumstances admit of it.
F: We cannot be in agreement with any upon the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ without being in fellowship with them.
T: It would be more scriptural if you used the expression "things" concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 8:12), AND "continue in well-doing" (Rom. 11:7). But perhaps you mean this: if so, your statement is true.
F: Neither can we be in disagreement upon the essentials of that Gospel, and yet be in fellowship.
T: That follows as the logical sequence.
F: We cannot "fellowship" false doctrine without being in agreement with it, and therefore believing it.
T: That is NOT true. The Scriptures declare we can fellowship without believing it. One illustration will suffice. In the chapter referred to (1 Cor. 10:18) we have seen that Paul tells his brethren that those who eat of the sacrifices offered to idols are "partakers" (original: fellowshippers) of the alter, and therefore fellowship ALL represented thereby-which in this case were "demons" or idols. Now, you have admitted that they did not eat with the idols themselves, but with their worshipers. The Corinthian believers knew with Paul that an "idol is nothing in the world" (1 Cor. 8:4). Therefore it is clear from Paul's counsel to them that they could "fellowship" false doctrine without believing in it themselves.
F: We cannot fellowship the evil deeds of another without being in agreement with them and doing the same things.
T: We have just shown we can. But further: John in his second epistle calls false teaching concerning Christ an "evil deed." And he says if we bid the man with this false doctrine God speed," we become partakers (original: fellowshippers) of his evil deeds. It is quite clear he is not referring to those who believed or were doing the same things, for he says it is the bidding him God speed that creates the participation. Now, what is meant by "God speed"? The original word occurs 74 times. It is only rendered "God speed" twice. The rest of the time it is rendered "hail, rejoice, rejoicing, greeting, joy, glad, and farewell." So the primary meaning is evidently "welcome." We are not to welcome a holder of false doctrine. Not to welcome him where? At our homes, or at the Table? Why, at the Table of the Lord-for surely you cannot contend that we ought to welcome a person there when we cannot welcome him at our house.
F: The idea of responsibility for the beliefs and doings of others being transferred to us by the breaking of bread is a false idea.
T: Your ideas on this "transference of responsibility" are entirely without foundation. We believe no such thing.
F: The principle taught throughout the Bible is that declared in Ezekiel: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father; neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him" (18:20).
T: Yes, and every true Christadelphian heartily endorses that testimony. In no way does it militate against their belief that God will not hold him guiltless who presumes to "hail" or bid "God speed" to those who fail to respect the holy, separate, peculiar position to which He calls them.
F: This was said by God in reply to a statement made by the Israelites to the effect that His way is not equal, because they believed that the evil doings of an individual would be visited upon another. Let us be careful how we make this same accusation against God.
T: The accusation is certainly not to be found in the Christadelphian doctrine of fellowship, one of the principles of which is that each member is responsible to God for the company HE keeps.
F: It is as true in the 19th century after Christ as it was five centuries before him that "the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked upon him."
T: Yes, quite as true. And that man who bids erroneous teachers and evildoers "God speed" or "joy" by partaking of the emblems with them will not suffer for the evil deeds of his companions, but for his own unfaithfulness in holding fellowship where God has forbidden it.
F: There are many other considerations that plainly show the fallacy of the idea that the breaking of bread is a medium for the transference of evil.
T: No doubt. But such a thing as "transference of evil" is not believed by the Christadelphians, hence there is no need to go into "other considerations." But while the breaking of bread cannot be the medium for the "transference of evil," it can be the means of making a man an evil-doer by partaking with evil-doers, as we have most clearly proved from the epistles of Paul and John.
F: We constantly see brethren and sisters do things of which we disapprove, and would not do ourselves. We constantly hear of some item of belief that we consider out of harmony with Scripture teaching. But do you think for a moment that we become responsible for those actions and beliefs because we partake of the emblems with those that practice them?
T: God has allowed liberty in many matters in which conscience must guide us. Hence, what is sin to one may not be to another. You yourself have introduced the word "essentials." By that, we presume you mean "first principles." Only errors which involve those "essentials" or "first principles" should bar our fellowship.
F: If we break bread with a brother whose idea upon some doctrinal subject is different from our own, does that act make us believe the same as he?
T: Of course not! The question is too ridiculous to seriously ask.
F: Then we have no agreement with such a belief, consequently we do not fellowship it.
T: You have made that statement before, and we have shown its unscripturalness.
F: If evil be thus transferred, then upon the same principle, the good would be also.
T: Certainly. But as evil is not transferred, on the same principle, good is not. It would be better if you kept to the words "partake" or "fellowship" instead of coining the word "transfer" for us.
F: Why should we become partakers of a brother's sin by breaking bread with him, and not be partakers in another brother's well-doing by the same means?
T: Just as we "partake" of sin in bidding "God speed" to evil-doers, so we "partake" of good in doing likewise with "well-doers" (Mal. 3:16).
F: If every time we break bread in the same company with a righteous brother and a wicked brother, we have fellowship with their righteousness and their iniquity respectively, then both righteousness and wickedness would be imputed to us as a consequence?
T: With regard to the typical uncleanness under the Law of Moses, created by contact with unclean persons (to which you have referred), it distinctly states- "When he knoweth of it, THEN he shall be guilty" (Lev. 5:3). In like manner, under Christ's law, iniquity is not imputed where we unwittingly "sacrifice" or "break bread" with a "wicked brother." WE only (knowingly) fellowship righteous brethren, and therefore only righteousness is "imputed" (your word) to us.
F: John wrote: "Our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ" (I John 1:3). Now we read in the same chapter (v. 8) that "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the Truth is not in us," for "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3.23). But, although we are all sinners, yet "we have fellowship with the Father and the Son." Does our fellowship of them involve them in our wickedness?
T: If we are "walking in the Light" [required for fellowship: v. 7], then the "sin" which we have is not imputed to us, but we are covered by the righteousness of Christ (Rom. 4:6-8; Rev. 7:14). Clothed with this garment, we have the fellowship of the Father and the Son. Without this garment, they will not permit us to have their fellowship. While we have fellowship with them, we are "clean every whit" (John 13:10), and thus there is no wickedness for them to be "involved" in.
F: If responsibility for evil is incurred in the case of our brethren, it is also incurred in the cases of the Father and the Son.
T: Are you not reducing God and Christ to your own level? Have you never read that the One forgives through the mediumship of the other? Have you omitted to read the next verse to the one you quote: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins" (1 John 1:9). Bearing this in mind, can you not see that we have fellowship with the Father and Son not as sinners but as children "cleansed from ALL unrighteousness" (same verse), and that therefore there is no sin for the Father and Son to be "involved" in. WITHOUT THIS FORGIVENESS, THERE IS NO FELLOWSHIP. That man is not forgiven who unrepentantly continues in sin, and whose fellowship therefore we cannot knowingly entertain without separating ourselves from the fellowship of the Father and Son.
F: If the Father and Son are not involved in our wrong-doings by the fellowship we are permitted to have with them, then our brethren are not made responsible for our sins by means of that same fellowship they have with us.
T: Firstly, we have shown that there is no wrong-doing for the Father and Son to be involved in. Secondly, we do not believe or teach responsibility for other men's sins; but that it is for our OWN sins in knowingly partaking with unrepentant wrong doers that we are held responsible.
F: These few points, if carefully reflected upon (especially bearing in mind that not a tittle of Scripture evidence arrays itself against them) are sufficient to destroy the idea hitherto held by most of us. (Let us note well this testimony that "most" had till then held the views he is repudiating.)
T: It ill becomes you to talk about "Scripture evidence." From beginning to end, you quote but seven texts in a long, written address in which you profess to have demonstrated the unscriptural nature of what we contend is a Bulwark of the Unity of the Household of Christ. Your quotations are: Lev. 6:2; Psa. 94:20; Acts 2:41; 1 Cor. 10:15-20; 2 Cor. 8:4; Eze. 18:4; 1 John 1. We have shown that these do not help you but us. And we have amply supported them with other quotations. Your assertion about "not a tittle of evidence" against you is on a par with your statement about the "subject being imperfectly understood."
F: The idea has gained a place in our minds by being handed from one to another and accepted without examination. Thus it has operated for a considerable time without anyone feeling called upon to give a reason for it.
T: If the "our minds" consists of your own, we do not object to your assertion, but if you mean the brethren generally, we impugn it. And we have already given our reason for so doing.
F: This doctrine has been responsible for most of the awful divisions that have taken place among the Brotherhood.
T: But that is no reason, to a student of the Word, for rejecting the doctrine. The beloved apostle alone informs us of three divisions on account of Christ in the short space of one year (John 7:43; 9:16; 10:19). Christ himself tells us that obedience to him would result in division (Luke 12:51). Peter and Paul both speak of Christ as "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense" (1 Peter 2:8; Rom. 9:33; 1 Cor. 1:23). And on one occasion Christ said even "all" his disciples would be "offended" because of him (Matt. 26:31). But shall we reject him, because he was the reason for all these divisions? Nay, is it not rather to be expected that as Christ was himself the "source" of so many divisions, so his doctrine would also be, if faithfully contended for?
F: If we are in agreement on the subject matter of "The One Faith," and mutually strive to walk in harmony with Christ's commands, our fellowship remains-even though we may not "break bread together" till Christ comes.
T: That is true-provided it is not our fault that we do not break bread with others: such as inability to get to the meetings, etc. But if we refuse to break bread when opportunity occurs, then we are wilfully disobedient, and cannot expect the fellowship of God and of His faithful children.
F: Do not let me be misunderstood. We ought not to acknowledge fellowship where there is no agreement upon fundamental elements of the Gospel of Christ. That is the basis of our fellowship-of our communion.
T: And a scriptural basis it is, too. But in the statements you have made, you decline to confine your acknowledgment of this fellowship to those who are in agreement on this question. You are willing to extend fellowship to those who do not see the need for such agreement on those fundamental elements, and who thereby destroy unity of mind on this highly important doctrine of fellowship.
F: If there be agreement among ourselves and others upon the ground of our Faith, and companionship in our efforts to conform to the spirit of God's commands, then we ought to be glad and willing to acknowledge the fellowship.
T: Yes, "if"! But there is no such agreement, if you acknowledge fellowship with those who-while believing with you on the "essentials"-are nevertheless willing to fellowship with others who do not see the need for having the same mind.
F: Do not let us think that perfection of agreement is requisite upon all sorts of recondite matters in connection with the Truth, in order to establish the fellowship of the Gospel.
T: You must know we have never so believed, and therefore such a remark is not creditable to you.
F: Those things that God has plainly declared to be necessary before a man can be truly baptized into Christ, are the only essentials of fellowship, and there can be no fellowship without them.
T: True. And that must be the gauge or test to be applied, not only to those with whom we personally acknowledge fellowship, but also to those who are acknowledged by them, and so on.
F: Where they are believed and observed, fellowship is established, whether we recognize it or not.
T: "Believed AND observed"! True.
F: It behooves us to act toward each other as we would have Yahweh act toward us.
T: Yes, provided no command of God is thereby violated-for in some cases faithfulness prohibits us so acting.
F: God admits men into His fellowship who are not perfect.
T: That is not true. Only those clothed in His Son's righteousness (and therefore perfect in him) are so admitted.
F: Not one of us dare say that many brethren who are denied the privilege of sitting with us at the Lord's table are not the adopted children of God, even as we.
T: And neither do we so say. But there are faithful and unfaithful children. Connivance at, or condonation of, unfaithfulness is not permissible.
F: Not one of us dare assert that they are less worthy of the divine approval, or that they are not admitted into the fellowship of the Father and Son.
T: And we have no desire to make such assertions. We leave Christ to do the asserting. We simply say we believe you are dishonoring God and His Son by partaking with those who do not maintain the Unity of the Faith. We decline to participate in unfaithfulness by receiving your fellowship.
F: I say again that there is only one way in which we can fellowship iniquitous conduct, and that is by practicing the same things, or conniving at their practice.
T: You have simply given us such "say," while we have clearly proved from the Bible that this "say" is unscriptural.
F: Let us require no more on the part of others before we will recognize the fellowship that actually DOES exist between us-whether we consent or not. Let us require no more of them than we are ready to render ourselves.
T: If that means anything at all, it means that you believe we are those "who say, and do not" (Matt. 23:3). In making such grave charges (by implication), it would be well if you kept your remark to a pronoun of the first person singular.
F: On the other hand, let us continue to refuse to break bread with all who hold not the Truth as it is in Jesus.
T: Good! But then you decline to insist on like conditions throughout the brotherhood generally with whom you are in fellowship. You maintain that you are in no way involved in the errors of those whom you may so recognize in fellowship. The logical result can be but one: you will be compelled to throw in your lot with a community that permits fellowship with those who do not admit the absolute essentiality of those doctrines you believe to be fundamental. Your alleged "unity of faith" will go to the winds and be destroyed by unsound principles.
F: Let us cease to think so much of responsibility for the actions of others that cannot belong to us.
T: It would be more scriptural to cease to talk in that way, and begin to remember that "He that biddeth him God speed is partaker (fellowshipper) of his evil deeds" (2 John 11). To remember also that Christ threatened the early churches for KEEPING IN the church evil thinkers and evil doers (Rev. 2:14-15, 20)-while not charging them personally with believing or doing the same things.
F: Let us spend less time in the unnecessary carefulness to keep ourselves immaculate from the blemishes of others by reason of touching but the border of their garments.
T: A smart sentence: but sad to hear from one who has known the Truth. In reply, we will simply give you a few texts to think over, and which some day you may see inculcate the carefulness you now condemn-
"Mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine ye have learned, and avoid them" (Rom. 16:17).
"Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Purge out the old leaven...put away...that wicked person" (1 Cor 5:6-13).
"Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners" (1 Cor. 15:33).
"Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers...Come out from among them and be ye separate...and I will receive you" (2 Cor. 6:14-17).
"Be not ye therefore partakers with them...Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness" (Eph. 5:7-11).
"We command you in the Name of our Lord Jesus: withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition he received of us...If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him" (2 Thess. 3:6-14).
"Be not partakers (fellowshippers) of other men's sins" (1 Tim. 5:22).
"Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers (fellowshippers) of her sins" (Rev. 18:4).
F: Let us take greater care to keep our OWN garments unspotted from the world.
T: To do this effectually, we must attend the counsel in the texts just quoted.
F: Christ came into direct contact with worldly filth enough, but it did not adhere to his own robe of righteousness.
T: Aye! But though "in the world," he was not "of the world" (John 17:11-16). He had "no fellowship with the works of darkness, but rather reproved them" (Eph. 5:11). We are counseled to "follow his steps" (1 Peter 2:21).
