The Basis Of Our Faith

Introduction

As we have often stressed, our belief in the Bible principles is encapsulated in the document known as the BASF, (Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith). Many other statements of faith exist and are used but this BASF is the glue that binds our community together, even though we do not meet exclusively on this basis, but on the Bible Principles thereby encapsulated. I once collected a sample of the numerous statements of belief of various Christadelphian ecclesias and organiza­tions from the Internet, and very few actually linked to the BASF.

However, technically this is not the only basis of our faith in North America. Some are aware that in Australia the long standing division between the two groups: “The Shield” and “Central” (the minority) was healed by what is known as “The Unity Book”, which is basically an account of the initiative by Brethren John Carter and Cyril Cooper in 1956, who visited at the request of the Australian Brethren.

Similarly, in September of 1952, Bro. John Carter while on a visit to the USA was invited to attend a joint meeting at the (Berean) Jersey City Hall between eccle­sial representatives of some of the Central (Amended) ecclesias and many of the Berean eccle­sias. (As in Australia, it appears the Central ecclesias were actu­ally the minority.) The proposed basis was initially a resolution as discussed below.

The statement

At this meeting, a new statement was put to the delegates for consideration as a basis of reunion. The statement consisted of three items to which were appended Clauses 3–12 of the Statement of Faith and Doctrines to be Rejected 4, 5,and 27. The three items are:

  1.  That we agree that the doctrines set forth in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith are a true exposition of the first principles of the oracles of God as set forth in the teachings of Jesus Christ and his apostles, and that therefore these doctrines are to be believed and taught by us without reserva­tion; the doctrine of the Scriptures on sin and its effects and God’s salvation from sin and death in Christ Jesus being defined in clauses three to twelve of the Statement of Faith.
  2. That we recognize as brethren and welcome to our fellowship all who have been immersed by whomsoever after their acceptance of the same doctrines and precepts, and that any brother departing from any element of the One Faith as defined in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith is to be dealt with according to apostolic precept.
  3. If an ecclesia is known to persist in teaching false doctrines, or to retain in fellowship those who do, other ecclesias can only avoid being involved by disclaiming fellowship.

Subsequently, all Central ecclesias in North America quickly agreed to this reso­lution, and over the next eighteen months or so many (but not all) of the Berean ecclesias agreed to the resolution.

The resolution (not used)

As a result the two previously divided communities were united after a separation of thirty years. So what appears to be the background to the three statements? A different resolution was passed by the Pomona (Berean) Ecclesia in 1940, and, as I have said, it was on the basis of this resolution that the conference was held in 1952. The resolution is worth repeating, as it encapsulates the major differences that apparently were believed, at least by some, to separate the two communities.

FOUR ERRORS TO BE REJECTED

  • That the nature of Christ was not exactly like ours.
  • That the offering of Christ was not for himself, and that Christ never made an offering for himself.
  • That Christ’s offering was for personal sins or moral impurities only. That our sins laid on Christ made him unclean and accursed of God, and that it was from this curse and this uncleanness that Christ needed cleansing.
  • That Christ died as a substitute. That is, that he was punished for the trans­gressions of others, and that he became a bearer of sin by suffering the pun­ishment due for sins.

SIX STATEMENTS OF TRUTH TO BE RECEIVED

  • That death came into the world extraneously to the nature bestowed upon Adam in Eden, and was not inherent in him before sentence.
  • That the sentence defiled him (Adam) and became a physical law of his being, and was transmitted to all his posterity.
  • That the word “sin” is used in two principal acceptations in the Scriptures. It signifies in the first place “the transgression of law,” and in the next it repre­sents that physical principle of the animal nature which is the cause of all its diseases, death, and resolution to dust.
  • That Jesus possessed our nature, which was a defiled, condemned nature.
  • That it was therefore necessary that Jesus should offer for himself for the purging of his own nature, first, from the uncleanness of death, that having by his own blood obtained eternal redemption for himself, he might be able afterward to save to the uttermost those that come to God by him.
  • That the doctrine of substitution — that is, that a righteous man can, by suffering the penalty due to the sinner, free the sinner from the penalty of his sin — is foreign to Scripture, and is a dogma of heathen mythology.

These statements were not, in fact, made part of the final resolution: and I have heard grumblings about this from many over the years. This is not the place to consider these statements, but it is perhaps partially as a result of their abandon­ment that there is still a small Berean community in North America. (Whether their inclusion would have generated a split in the Central Community is hard to tell at a distance of 60 years. It is known some ecclesias objected to some of the language.)

Comments on the three statements adopted

The first statement, concerning the importance of the first principles as set forth in the BASF, is of course a sentence all in the Amended Community would agree to.

The second statement, concerning

  • The acceptance of all baptized on the above basis, whether (by implication) Bereans or Central, was so that the formerly Berean were not required to be re-baptized on joining the Central community. This acceptance was univer­sal among Central ecclesias. With very rare exceptions, we can see from the intelligence in The Christadelphian that those joining from affiliated groups (Unamended, Berean, Dawn, COGAF, etc.) were not and are not normally re-baptized.
  • The second part of the statement, “that any brother departing from… the One Faith… is to be dealt with according to apostolic precept” is a phrase used in all subsequent reunions, and basically refers to the procedure laid down: “As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him” (Titus 3:10 ESV).

The third statement about “disclaiming fellowship” with an erring ecclesia, is not used by subsequent reunions. I believe this was included due to the view that the Bereans had on ecclesial fellowship. To greatly simplify, the Bereans held that if an ecclesia A had an erring member and did not take action that a different ecclesia B approved of, then not only would ecclesia B withdraw fellowship from ecclesia A, but also from every other ecclesia C that did not take similar action. This practice is sometimes called “daisy chain fellowship”, “block disfellowship”, or “guilt by as­sociation”. In contrast, the third statement supports ecclesia B withdrawing from ecclesia A but not from the other ecclesias C.

In this statement I believe Bro. Carter was specifically eliminating the Berean view of fellowship, which as we have observed has led to a successive splintering of the Bereans and similar groups. The Central/Amended view requires adherence to the Biblical Principles of the BASF, but essentially leaves its enforcement to the local ecclesia, and in very rare cases, to local groups of ecclesias. Many times The Christadelphian and The Tidings, have resisted any attempts to form councils or other such committees, and although some local conferences are known, they all have only a very local remit and have no real powers over individual ecclesias.