Reunion Committee Meeting's Minutes-- March 27, 1981 pg 3

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

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

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 of responsibility!

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

J. BREWIS: He pointed to the person who reaches a certain level of knowledge and then can be 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's understanding. One of their attempts to cast doubt upon the Amended's position was the following hypothetical case: Would God raise someone who reached this level of knowledge but later on, due to forgetfulness, allows his mind to return to darkness? (It would appear that what was being suggested by this is that we cannot say with any certainty that such an individual will be raised. In fact, we can say that he will be there just like the individual who is validly baptized and follows a similar course will be there. What happens after enlightenment only affects whether one's destiny will be life or death, and not whether one will be raised for judgment!) (He made other such suggestions, but I did not get them all. However, he referred to having them in print somewhere.) He then tried to state that the Unamended's reason for using 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 can something 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 not built on "possibilities" or maybes" for it is supposed to represent clear Bible truths essential for salvation. If an item is only a "possibility," then there is doubt as to its signification and meaning. Again I repeat, a statement of faith should not contain statements of doubt and should 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 God will 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 as meaning "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 of knowledge. (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 who reject 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 and defending a clear Scriptural principle that is involved. Again, we find an emotional appeal devoid of reason.)

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

D. STYLES: He stated that the Unamended would not accept that, and that he would not accept 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 'The Ten Points'?" Upon attempting to resolve this question by finding out the Unamended's position, he maintained that their reason for the word "possibility" was to protect against identifying 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 in regards 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 that day, four members voted for it because they thought it was a very good document and should be offered to the ecclesias. Three members were against it.

A. NICHOLLS: He was going to state matters of fact and not personal opinion. He was involved 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 advice or 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 happens here, A. Nicholls and H. Tennant and the CMPA and the magazine would be loyal to the decision. The decision will affect the rest of the world brotherhood. He will help in regards to his opinion and the implementation of this basis of reunion. When the proper time comes they (he and Harry) will try to help in the assessment of the situation depending on whether it is "go" or "no go." He reminded all that the CMPA is committed to the BASF. (If it is committed to 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 respect became of Brother Thomas and Brother Carter for exposition, and Brother Roberts on fellowship. He maintains that he is on the BASF. (Notice how all these people who are supporting this document are compelled by the nature of this document to admit that they personally believe in the BASF. The obvious reason for this is to try and avoid the natural charge, for the support of this document, that they do not! This document sets aside Clause XXIV as a basis of fellowship!) The concern in Britain would not be that we are out of step with them (and consequently with the BASF), but rather that there is a problem that has to be solved. (Are problems solved by reducing the statement of faith? Are problems solved by being out of step with the BASF? Is the abandonment of a clear statement, containing no doubt, on resurrectional responsibility for one which is not as positive, and contains doubt, a solving of the problem? Since when is the case for Truth served by being doubtful or ambiguous? How is it possible to maintain the BASF as completely scriptural when your basis of fellowship acknowledges that part of it is not?) In the beginning, we have the unearthing 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, and John Carter. There arose problems around the Atonement: Turney, J. J. Andrew. (Notice that Thomas Williams is not mentioned even though his view of the Atonement was not correct either!). J. J. Andrew brought to light the problem about responsibility. (Correction, Thomas Williams 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 Everlasting Covenant. Such teaching forced us into our definition of Clause XXIV. When these discussions began, we had all sorts of fears and suspicions about what the other side believed. 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 which would have been 7-0 in favor. (This statement is an obvious assumption which appears to me to be presumptuous. The rest of the document also has inadequacies which are unacceptable as far as I am concerned. Anyone who can accept this document as a clear statement of The Truth as it is in Jesus must either be naive or willingly ignorant!) What we say about this does not matter for God is going to perform His will regardless. What we are trying to find out is how for we have no power in it at all. (However, whether we represent or believe The Truth correctly affects our relationship with God! We definitely can not change God's will by wrongly defining it, but we can affect our destiny, and others, as well, who follow our misrepresentations of it! We are definitely responsible for our teaching of others. James 3:1) The present situation is that there is a movement towards the line which is us. We are not very far apart. (Another subjective statement!) He brought up an earlier idea of Brother Roberts about resurrection. (This statement is unfortunate for Brother Roberts clearly changed his mind on the point he is bringing up. Also, it must be remembered it was not a question 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 Thomas expressed hesitation about making it a test of fellowship. (An earlier comment deals with this hesitation.) That hesitancy continued in Brother Roberts' day. It was J. J. Andrew that brought it into focus. Now that J. J. Andrew's ideas have been removed we are back to the situation before 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. was understood to mean exactly what the B.A.S.F. now clearly says, but with this document that clear understanding is being removed. The position upon responsibility is that of Thomas Williams as far as fellowship is concerned, and not that taught by Brethren Thomas and Roberts 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 someone who had hesitancy. We should seriously look at this document, because the gap is closing and consider accepting it. He claimed he could not have voted for "The Ten Points," nor could A. Nicholls. He thinks this document is far better, a great improvement. (in what way?) He stated 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?)

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

Introductory Note and Text (supplied by Paul Schlicker)
Follow-up To Paul Schlicker by J.S. Scaramastro
List of Suggested Reading Materials