Letters to the Editor

Baptisms At an Early Age

Dear Bro. Don,

This letter is directed to the young man who would like to be bap­tized (2/98, p. 59).

First, I would like to say it is al­ways wonderful to hear a young per­son say he realizes he must be bap­tized and is seeking to do so, as it is the only hope of salvation. In our generation that type of enthusiasm is diminishing among the younger gen­eration due to the many worldly in­fluences from society and their peers. I was wondering if your correspon­dent would consider asking the senior brother what he meant exactly by the advice: “[Baptism would only be appropriate] when I have grown up and settled down and am not going to be tempted any more.” Was the brother really referring to just such a point in his life, or was he trying to tell him something else and possibly the young man did not ask enough ques­tions to see what the brother was actually trying to tell him?

I am sure there are several brothers and sisters who have been baptized as young as 14, and some younger, who have maintained a lifelong, devoted service to the Truth and have brought families and others into the Truth. I would never want to assert what they did was wrong.

On the other hand, I would like to address this issue because my two older brothers and I were baptized at 11 years old. All three of us left the Truth later on in our lives. I was the only one who eventually realized the value of what I had and sought diligently to return. Due to my own life experience, I have acquired a list of 20 individuals who have left the Truth and for whom I pray every day, for God to help them return. It is inter­esting to note that of the 20 individu­als, nine of them were baptized in their early teens.

I, too, was brought up in the Truth and never knew any other religion. My father died of cancer when I was nine and my mother kept saying Christ was due at any moment. I can really understand her eagerness, as the horrific problems she had to face made her yearn for his return and she anticipated it would happen then and relieve her of her suffering. Since my brothers had been baptized young, I also thought it was the best thing to do, especially if Christ was on the doorstep. I was a very lonely child; because we moved so many times and I had difficulty making friends. I thought baptism would be a means of feeling accepted and grown up.

What I had anticipated being baptized would do for me never did come to pass as I grew into my teens and early adulthood. I yearned for friends and a mate. There were al­ways twice as many young girls in the ecclesias as there were young men. I still found difficulty making friends and ended up seeking companionship in the world. I eventually married out of the Truth. I was in my middle twenties and married for a year when the Yom Kippur war broke out in Israel, and Russia was making threats to invade. I came to the stark realization of how close Christ’s return could be. I felt that 11 was too young and I really did not, by any means, compre­hend what I was doing at that age so decided to be re-instructed, re-examined and re-baptized since I was a grown, responsible adult who knew what I was doing and why.

My oldest brother and I married out of the Truth. He resents the Truth and is very bitter about the strict way he was brought up. He has suffered so many terrible trials in his life; it makes my heart ache because his suf­fering has been without prayer or God to reach out to. My other brother came back for a short time, but only to leave along with my mother, who moved into isolation from all fellowships. The two of them break bread at home on a Sunday and he keeps saying, when she dies, he is going to move to a town totally in isolation. This is very sad because it means he will have no ecclesial support of fellowship once she has gone.

Although I married a terrific man, wonderful husband and great father who came from a very upstanding family in the world, he is an atheist, does not believe in God at all, and was very jealous of God and my religion in the early years after I came back to the Truth. Our early years of marriage and raising the children in the Truth were very difficult, with many trying situations to face and with many years of desperate prayer and tears. I did not want to have any children because I felt I could not manage to raise them as God requires. I began to feel very selfish after awhile and so I asked God for two sons and for help to raise them unto Him.

God did bless me with two sons, but the struggle goes on daily with diligent prayer that my sons will one day serve Him and bring honor and glory to His name.

The advice I always gave to my sons and the young people I have met who want to be baptized, and especially parents who are pushing their young people to be baptized, is in the form of a question. “Would you want your daughter or son to be married between the ages of 11 and 16? The usual answer is “No” and it is inter­esting to hear what they say when you ask, “Why not?” When you marry you make a vow, “for better or worse until death parts.” How much more serious is the vow they are going to make to God? It is a vow to serve God with all your heart and mind, a total dedication of the rest of your life to Him. In a marriage you must learn to give more than you receive, you must learn self sacrifice, carry your share of the responsibility and forsake many opportunities and desires of your heart for the sake of your marriage vows.

Marriage is not always the “happy ever after” of the movies and neither is our walk in the Truth after baptism. It is the beginning of a wilderness journey which teaches us that we have no strength of our own and are entirely dependent upon God. One must realize that it is with “great tribulation we enter the kingdom of God.” This is because our characters need to be molded and our faith strengthened. The decision to be baptized involves a great deal more than just being spared from death. Consider the parallel of the vow of marriage and look at the terrible results in marriages of our day where the marriage vows have been broken. We must realize that the broken vow to God will be even more disastrous and horrific to our lives and the lives of our loved ones at our judgment. May I suggest to any young person who wishes to be baptized to first pick up a concordance and look up the word “vow” and go all the way through scripture on his own, without any ad­vice from others, and find out what it really means to make a vow to God.

If you think about the Lord Jesus Christ, who is our example, he was not baptized until he was 30, even though at 12 he showed his knowledge and wisdom in the temple in Jerusalem. God and Christ knew the appropriate time for him to be bap­tized. God knows our hearts, He knows our fears, He knows what is best for us. It may be difficult to un­derstand at 14, but youth is a very impatient time of life and the arrang­ing brothers must be sure that the young person truly understands the seriousness and the responsibility of the vow. One thing young people often don’t consider is the fact that the A.B.s we elect are the shepherds of our ecclesial flock and they have a grave and serious responsibility when it comes to baptizing someone. If they baptize individuals who are not aware of the knowledge and responsibility that God requires of them, later on it may lead to ecclesial problems. Our shepherds will have to answer to God if they are not thorough in their instruction and interviews for those seeking baptism.

It is much more important to be baptized into the truth of scripture than just to be baptized so that one may be saved in case of death.

When my oldest son was 18, he came to the conclusion he had been brought up Christadelphian and had never known any other religion and questioned if what we were teaching was the Truth. He decided to seek it out for himself and began to study the teachings and attend the meetings of various churches in our area. He then collected various translations, concordances and even started a study in Hebrew. It reminded me of those at Berea who were “more noble” because they searched the scripture daily and diligently to find out if what Paul had been telling them was “the truth.” He is now 21 and attending college but he still diligently spends a great deal of his spare time studying scripture. He has chosen to do it the hard way, but I feel more assured that, with prayer and God’s guidance, when he is baptized it will not be simply because of a fear of something, but because of a love of God based on the “truth of scripture.”

My final thought is that God knows the heart of our young people. He knew the heart of a very young David, who had a great deal of faith in God in his youth. Before facing Goliath, he had slain a lion and a bear. God gave David many years before he became king and he later received many great and precious promises. In our youth, we must remember God’s care for David in his younger years. Remember those beautiful words of David: “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for thou art with me.” I would like to ask our young writer to consider David and his faith in God in his youth. Consider and study the responsibility of what a vow to God is really all about. And finally consider the responsibility to God we place upon our shepherds who must make the final decision as to whether or not we are ready for such a step.

With much love, in hope you will continue to seek God’s way of scriptural truth and baptism.

A Concerned Sister

We thank our sister for express­ing her point of view, and take this opportunity to comment on some of her thoughts.

Vow-making not part of the gospel

Firstly, we did as suggested and read through the verses on making a vow and noted some interesting points.

1. Making a vow is closely linked with swearing an oath: “If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond…” (Num. 30:20). Oath-making is forbidden disciples of Christ: “But I say unto you, Swear not at all…” (Matt. 5:34-­37); “Swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation” (James 5:12).

Since that which is closely linked with vow-making is forbidden, we looked more carefully at the whole idea of vows and the gospel. And this is what we found:

2. Vows are nowhere associated with the commands of Christ. Paul does make a vow to reach Jerusalem by a certain feast date and four Jew­ish Christians took a vow in Jerusa­lem (Acts 18:18; 21:23). In both cases, however, it is clear Jewish be­lievers were performing rites of the old order that was passing away.
3. When making urgent appeals to live up to the new life in Christ, appeal is never made to a vow taken at baptism (cp. Rom. 12:1; I Cor. 6; Eph. 4:22ff; James 1:22ff, etc.). As illustrated in the sister’s foregoing letter, if it were appropriate, an appeal to our baptismal vows would be a most effective springboard for a strong exhortation to right conduct. This approach is not used, however.
4. In looking at the use of “prom­ise” and “covenant” in the New Tes­tament, frequent reference is made to God’s promises to us and His cov­enant with us, but we never read of our promises to God or our covenant with Him.

Is speaking of baptismal “vows” appropriate?

We asked ourselves, Why is this? Is our frequent reference to baptismal vows inappropriate?

It probably is! Making a vow, promise or covenant implies ability to fulfill the terms. We try to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and body, but we know we all fall woe­fully short. As a result, we very thank­fully enter into God’s covenant, relying on His gracious forgiveness of sins and being abundantly thankful that He counts our faith in Him as righteousness.

Christ baptized at 30

The Lord’s situation was markedly different from our own for the following reasons:

1. John Baptist’s baptism was specifically a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, of which Jesus had none.
2. Jesus was born Son of God and heir of the promises. He did not need to be baptized into this relationship, as we do.
3. The baptism of Jesus was to begin his ministry with a public acknowledgment he was one of the race, the Son of man, and would benefit from his own saving work.
4. Thirty years old was the minimum age for a priest to assume his full duties suggesting this would be the appropriate age for the Lord to begin his public instruction and rep­rimand of all elements of the nation, including the priests.

5. John Baptist’s ministry was a transition time between the old and new covenants. Baptism into the death and resurrection of Christ was not fully implemented until he had nailed the law to the cross and had been raised to newness of life (note Col. 2:11-15).

Accordingly, we do not feel the Lord’s action sets any precedent for delaying baptism until age 30.

Delaying baptism not good

If a person is full of earnest conviction for the gospel and evidences a sincere conscience toward God, age should not be a primary consideration. Better to complete one’s maturation process (physical and spiritual) forgiven of sins and united with Christ, than remain alienated from him, still in our sins. Even Peter’s conversion was not fully complete until years after his baptism for the Lord said, “When you are converted…” (Luke 22:32).

Therefore we can expect to do much spiritual growing after baptism even, in some cases, completing the process of conversion to the way of Christ.

Christadelphian Fellowships

Dear Don,

The February issue of The Tidings has just arrived and I was par­ticularly interested in the letters on “Christadelphian Fellowship.” As I have been much involved in the Dawn/Central dialogue on behalf of the CBM over recent years, I would appreciate an opportunity to comment.

Some time ago two Christadelphian ecclesias in Lusaka, Zambia discovered each other’s existence. One was Central, one Dawn. They quickly realized they held the same beliefs, determined to come together and asked for advice from the UK. The way this request was handled has had a great influence on more recent events. It showed that aggressive, hardline stances by Western breth­ren can only harm those overseas. What helped was guidance to bring the two ecclesias together in a care­fully thought-out way based on unam­biguous acceptance of the BASF. In this aspect, this reunion was no dif­ferent from the way we approach these matters in other countries.

Since that time more dialogue has occurred, some hurtful and unpleas­ant things have been said, equally there have been measured and thoughtful responses on difficult issues. Brothers and sisters in other fellowships are no different from our­selves in the way they respond and act.

It would be wrong to give the impression though, that visitors over­seas, sponsored by the CBM, break bread with other Christadelphian fel­lowships. Whatever personal views are held, we all recognize that this will only fuel greater dissent and is not the way to bring reunion.

Yes, we acknowledge the scrip­tural teaching of “one body” and wish that we were united in fellowship. But if we go about this in the wrong way, there is a danger that we draw overseas brothers and sisters into our historical differences unnecessarily and perhaps lose them altogether. That would trouble my conscience greatly, much more than maintaining separate fellowships until we can come together in an orderly way.

We have consistently stated our belief that salvation does not depend on membership in Central rather than Dawn fellowship, that we will not make fellowship issues a battleground in areas where we preach and that we will respect the views of those who wish to remain separate even though we do not agree with them.

Sincerely your brother,

Andrew Walker, Chairman CBM (UK)

Dear Don,

There are a number of points I would like to comment on resulting from your February publication.

Bro. Stephen Camplin’s letter

I think Bro. Stephen Camplin’s letter requires some comments be­cause either he is unaware of the Dawn situation in England or he has chosen to ignore it. Sis. Booker’s ref­erence to “a very positive and sizable movement” transferring to Central is an accurate statement and does not simply refer to those in Russia. A re­view of the Christadelphian magazine over the past 36 months will indicate that there has been approximately a 20% to 25% transfer rate In a community numbering about 1,000 members [the Dawn Fellowship], I would say that is quite a sizable num­ber [An ex-Dawn brother, who has been in the middle of the transfer to Central, gave the numbers as 650 of 1,300 Dawn members transferring to Central, or 50%, ed ].

What I find most disturbing is that members of the Dawn commu­nity have been fed with information which does not reflect the true con­dition of Central True, the Central community is not free from difficul­ties, but who is, and anyone who leaves in pursuit of a “pure fellow­ship” will be sadly disappointed, un­less of course, they are prepared to bury their heads m the sand I know this for a fact, having left Central, joined the Dawn for five years and returned quite disillusioned Others have commented that they have not found the doctrinal errors m Central that they had been warned about by the Dawn.

Bro Duncan Heaster ‘s comment that “we should fellowship with all who have been validly baptized into the one body and continue to hold the Faith” is a valid point – “the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ” The body of Christ does not recognize manmade barriers Thus if Bro Camplin’s comment is true, that the one body extends beyond fellowship barriers (and I believe it does), then it is equally true according to the Dawn position that they are “in fellowship” with members of other groups who believe the same And yet they deliberately choose to withhold fellowship from brothers and sisters whose beliefs and practices are identical to their own

Day of fasting and prayer

My other comment relates to the sentiments expressed under the above heading (p 78) I am a little confused – what extensive activity is going on related to unity? Who has been nomi­nated to represent the Central body in North America to conduct reunion discussions? What is the basis upon which any discussion is progressing? From a Newfoundland perspective, the ecclesia has received no material indicating that discussions are pro­gressing or with whom.

Bro Heaster made an important comment in his paper on fellowship when he stated that “Christ is not di­vided, and neither should we be” This is true, nevertheless unity can only be achieved when the basis of fellowship is agreed upon The basis upon which unity is established is a common belief in the things concern­ing the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ For over 100 years that common belief has been reflected in the BASF, yet unfortunately there have been attempts in the past to erode the foundation of our faith No matter how sincere we might be in striving to bring two or more parties together there is no excuse for weak­ening what has proved to be a most satisfactory and scriptural basis of fellowship.

Whatever the value an individual may place on a day of fasting and prayer, it is necessary that brothers and sisters know what is on the table so that they can say Amen or other­wise to the prayers that are offered Ron Kidd, St John’s Newfoundland

Regarding current reunion dis­cussions in North America: There are no continent-wide discussions. Local discussions are in process in southern Ontario and Indiana/Illi­nois between Amended and Un­amended brethren. Preliminary dis­cussions of an exploratory nature are occurring in the Mid-Atlantic area and discussions continue on the West Coast in order to consummate the reunion largely achieved there in 1991-92 between Amended and Un­amended ecclesias. In addition, seven Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith churches (which do not fellowship the CGAF General Conference) are continuing discus­sions with Amended ecclesias in the Midwest.

This activity is all in the spirit of what happened in Lusaka, Zambia – brethren in close geographic proximity find themselves separated from those who hold the same beliefs. Re­alizing this is wrong, they are seeking to remedy a situation that is not of their making. And, just as the lo­cal reunion in Lusaka started a chain-reaction in many areas of the Dawn fellowship, so any local reunions in North America may have more wide­spread implications.

Continent-wide discussions would be more orderly but have failed in the past and would no doubt fail again. Having participated in them as secretary of the Amended Conti­nental Reunion Committee, we would not recommend reforming the conti­nental committees. At some point, however it may be highly advanta­geous for some of the on-going local discussions to coordinate with one another to make for a larger move­ment at one time.

To our knowledge, participants in all on-going discussions are fully aware the doctrines conveniently summarized in the BASF form the basis of fellowship in Central Fellowship. We know of no intent to erode this doctrinal basis for it has served us well over the years as a safeguard against losing our hold on the Truth.

We should remember however, Bro. Peter Hemingray’s comment (Tidings, 12/97, p.448) referring to the years 1864 to 1869: “There were also many other debates, often over minute details of interpretation, and the whole American brotherhood was fragmented.” In those days, there was clearly far greater emphasis on doctrinal detail than maintaining fel­lowship with all who held the first principles of the faith. That history is still reflected in today’s divisions and in the fact that even the BASF makes only passing reference to the doctrine of the one body. We need to be honest with ourselves and recog­nize we have not given the same prominence to this fundamental of the faith as we have to the other six item­ized by Paul (Eph. 4:3-6). As a result, those involved in the unity efforts are struggling against a strong his­torical current in our community and very much need the Lord’s gracious help which was sought by many in the day of prayer and fasting.

Regarding Steve Camplin’s letter: It has come to our attention that his quotation from “Ecclesias in the Lycus Valley” by Ron Abel, 1982, was so abbreviated as to lose the sense of Bro. Ron’s original comments. Our late brother wrote (unquoted part in brackets []) under the head­ing, “Conclusions drawn from the Christ Body Metaphor:” “Point #1. There is one Christ Body. Those who leave the Christ Body and set up other ‘fellowships’ have placed themselves outside the ecclesia of God.

“[There is only one Christ Body and the individual members are ‘Joined’ and ‘knit’ together (Eph 4 16) If, however, the Christ Body ceases to be such, through error in doctrine or practice, then there is no nourishment and no hope of salvation in the community It is impossible to maintain a separate fellowship like the Bereans, Dawns, Old Paths, Family Journal etc , while ac­knowledging brethren in Christ in the central fellowship ]

“If the Central fellowship is the Christ body, then logically the meta­phor precludes different ‘bodies’ when there is only one Christ Body.

“[Footnote Furthermore, there are no examples of ecclesias in the first century out of fellowship with other ecclesias, yet still regarding each other as “brethren m Christ” This is the case despite many ex­amples of ecclesial inter relationships the Jerusalem Conference, col­lections for poor Jews in Judea and the extensive travel of believers ]”

The Power of Example

Dear Don,

The following story was on the Internet and submitted for our pos­sible use. We have modified it to a Christadelphian setting.

His name is Bill He has wild hair, wears a T-shirt, Jeans and sandals This was his wardrobe for his entire four years of college He is brilliant but idiosyncratic He was baptized while attending college at a university-town ecclesia

When visiting a school friend, he excused himself on Sunday morning to attend a much more traditional ecclesia m a neighboring town The ecclesia would like to be more ap­pealing to young people, but was not sure how to go about it That Sun­day, the hall was full and when Bill walked in late in his Jeans, T-shirt, sandals and wild red hair, there were no seats available So Bill started down the aisle looking for a seat.

By now people were looking a bit uncomfortable, but no one said any­thing Bill got closer and closer to the platform, and when he realized there were no seats, he did what one would do at his home ecclesia – he sat down cross-legged on the carpet off to the side.

The brothers and sisters were really uptight and the tension was thick m the air About that time, the presiding brother realized the door­keeper was slowly making his way toward Bill Now the doorkeeper had silver hair, was wearing a traditional suit and was in his seventies He was a dignified, godly man who walked with a cane.

As he started walking toward this boy, everyone was saying to them­selves, “You can’t blame him for what he’s going to do How can you ex­pect a man of his age and of his back­ground to understand some college kid on the floor?”

It seemed to take a long time for the door brother to reach the boy The meeting was utterly silent except for the clicking of the brother’s cane All eyes were focused on him as the meeting lust stopped until the brother did what he had to do.

And then they saw this elderly man drop his cane on the floor and, with difficulty, lower himself and sit next to Bill so he wouldn’t be alone.

When the presiding brother regained his composure, he said “What we’ll hear today we’ll no doubt forget What we’ve Just seen, we’ll always remember”

From Beth Curtis, Cleveland, Ohio

World Bankers Repent

Dear Bro. Don,

I must confess to being amazed at the response of Bro. Lee Livermore to “World Bankers Repent” (article 11/97, letter 12/97). Would he call God’s prophet Isaiah a “socialist” and “humanist” for what he wrote by di­vine inspiration concerning capital­ists who “grind the faces of the poor” in chapter 3 (these wealthy in Israel would all appear to be religious people), or Amos for what he wrote in 8:4-5 or James for his rebuke of the heartless rich in chapter 5? Surely such direct words would “belong in the Tidings?”

I did not condemn the present tenor of the World Bank, as Bro. Lee suggests. Significantly, the “repentance” referred to came from within its corridors of power, certainly not from “socialists,” and it was not “humanistic.” As Jam sure most readers realized, those who today constitute the conscience of the World Bank and its associated agencies are not athe­ists but in many cases people with a fear and love of God and their fellow man. I think Sir James Wolfenssohn (World Bank President), who under­stands God’s word through Moses very well indeed, would be very deeply hurt at the imputation he is a “socialist” or “liberal” or anything else but a sincere God-fearing Jew responsible for a great deal of God’s (not “other people’s”) money.

I would be distressed if I thought the Christadelphians had fallen for political propaganda of either the “left” or the “right” rather than the straightforward Bible doctrine of money and financial stewardship. The idea that the poor of this world have only themselves to blame and so the rich can keep their wealth for their own use comes from Calvinism, not the Bible. I would have thought the scandal of the Swiss banks becoming rich and prosperous for half a century on the wealth of millions of murdered Jews would have caused a Christadelphian to recognize that much, perhaps most, human wealth is indeed “ill-gotten.”

Alan Eyre, Port Maria, Jamaica

Where’s Our King?

Dear Bro. Don,
God’s waiting for His last saint. Marcel Guerin, Seminole, FL

Dear Bro. Don,
“Where is Our King?” was a su­per good article.
W Tucker Swartz Creek, MI

Dear Bro. Don,
Regretfully, this is a letter of protest.

I have just read the editorial for the month of December, 1997. I was somewhat astonished with the content and the reasoning that was put forth.

Regarding the time of Christ’s coming, it is a certainty that Deity has appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness. This is plainly stated in the scriptures written before Christ’s birth and those written after his death and resurrec­tion.

Psa. 102:13: “Thou shalt arise, and have mercy upon Zion: for the time to favor her, yea, the set time, is come.”

Acts 17:31: “Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.”

This principle of truth was also clearly declared by our beloved Bre. Thomas, Roberts and Mansfield. They dismissed the idea put forward that the day of Christ’s coming can be altered by present actions now; and not only these prominent and faithful brethren, but the community of be­lievers as a whole through the centu­ries. Bro. Styles, you well know that the apostasy in all its Catholic and Protestant manifestations have held this notion for many years. Is it pos­sible that the Children of Darkness have been more correct regarding the impetus of Christ’s return than the Children of Light? You used Matthew 24:14 to put forward the new propo­sition, “And this gospel of the king­dom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” “The end” is referring to the end of the Mosaic economy in 70 A. D. We must not ignore the fact that Matthew 24:14 has found fulfillment in Colossians 1:23: “If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister.” (Also see Elpis Israel, p. 193.) Even if the sugges­tions made (“Is something causing the delay?” and “Can we hasten the return?”) are defended in the spirit that “they were only suggestions,” they are nevertheless very harmful, for they introduce doubt. Doubt is destruc­tive to and is the antithesis of faith.

It was stated: “Other brethren feel the divided state of the brotherhood greatly grieves the Lord and may be a factor in his delay.” If the proposals are held to be suggestions only, then how can they be propounded as a sound basis for some undefined union? (Were you referring to the Unamended Community and/or (a) congregations (s) who do not refer to themselves as Christadelphians?)

There are other issues, but I hope you will consider these remarks in the right spirit and make rectification in the next issue of “Tidings.”

Daniel Carroll, Atlanta, TX

Obviously reaction to the refer­enced editorial varied greatly. We feel the issue is not cut and dried and varied points of view should be heard How we discuss the matter is no doubt more important than  what  we say about it, and we appreciate the tem­pered appeal presented above.

Passages such as Psalm 102:13 and Acts 17:31 are why brethren (in­cluding ourselves) have felt the pro­phetic time periods could be calcu­lated to a specific year if only we have the right starting point. There is, however significant evidence in the other direction.

1. II Peter 3:7-10 clearly suggests divine judgments are being delayed as God is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to re­pentance.”
2. Matthew 24 is not so easily re­stricted to AD 70. There are significant differences between the Olivet Prophecy in Matthew and Luke which fit a pattern. Namely:

• Description of persecution of those preaching the Truth is so phrased in Luke 21:12-15 as uniquely applicable to the first century; not so in Matthew 24:9-10.
• Gospel preached to all the world (Matt. 24:14)- omitted in Luke.
• Greatest tribulation ever (Matt. 24:21) – omitted in Luke.
• Tribulation shortened for elect’s sake (Matt. 24^.22) – omitted in Luke.
• Jerusalem falls to Gentiles until times of Gentiles over (Luke 21:24) – omitted in Matthew
• Immediately after tribulation Son of man comes Watt 24 29-30) – omitted in Luke

The pattern is that Luke describes the first century to A.D. 70, has a clear break and then our end times; Matthew excludes details unique to A.D. 70 and suggests double appli­cation throughout. We thus have reason to feel the Matthew reference to the gospel preached to all the world applies now.

3. God’s judgments are sometimes delayed by events: Punishment of Ahab’s family was deferred by his remorse (I Kings 21:29); punishment of Judah was delayed by Josiah’s righteousness (II Chron. 34:27-28) and could have been delayed further (Jer 36:2-3).
4. The phrase “the appointed time” can indicate the existence of specific circumstances – “when the transgressors are come to the full” – as well as a specific calendar date (Dan. 8:19,23).
5. As we mentioned in the edito­rial, the Lord Jesus, who had perfect understanding of scripture, did not know the time of his return (Matt. 24:36). Therefore it is not revealed in the time periods of Daniel.

Accordingly, we do not feel the right answer on this matter is so defi­nite as to eliminate discussion.

Teenager Wants Baptism But Feels Discouraged

(In the following, the vernacular has been preserved to maintain the flavor of the original letter)

Dear Mr Don,

I am a youth of 14 going on 15 and some of my large family are Christadelphians I was raise right through the Sunday School at my ecclesia.

A year back or so I had some wa­vering but then a visiting brother show me from the Bible that I won’t be in the kingdom unless I baptize I think about it a whole lot till my head bust, and I see some youth shot and some kill on the road and me is not taking the cup and the bread as yet.

So I decide my mind, but then some big important brothers tell the ecclesia that Christadelphians don’t baptize young somebody because young people is not sincere and if we is to baptize is only soon back into the world we is going and I will be going after girls and all that When I have gown up and settle down and not going to be tempted any more, then I can baptize and take a place m the church.

But I cannot see that you people believe what you preach Because if you tell me that I will be damned if I don’t baptize, but you don’t baptize until I have left school and got a work and built a home and settled down with a family, and are certain not to backslide, what kind of a doctrine is that?

So I talk to another church and they tell me that if I baptize to fulfil all righteousness and then pray with­out ceasing, God will keep me from falling I see that clear in the Bible (Jude v 24)

You people I can see are just all the time frighten that young believ­ers will fall away and put you to some shame or other You just want to have a boast about nobody backsliding but you don’t give them any help or encouragement, just tell us to wait for years until we are older and have more sense. It is not you who keep people in the faith, it is God above in His mercy, and Jesus Christ who is my Savior. So I am going to baptize and I know they will not let me down, even if it can’t be with you.

I am writing because my family get your magazine and some of the things you write are not like the miserable things I am told.

Some brother said I should take instruction. I said for how long be­cause I have been in Sunday School. He said about two or three years and then he would check me if I was ready But what if I am dead by then. I would be gone and lost.

You people don’t want young people to be saved, only to be looked down on. I am looking for an answer in the magazine from you, but please don’t use my name or where lain from because I will get in trouble.

Anon

To a Dear Young Man,

Are you ready to serve Christ? Just taking the bread and wine doesn’t save us. Yes God and Christ will help us and keep us from falling if we pray with all sincerity. Scripture says, “The Lord is with you, while ye be with him; and if ye seek him, he will be found of you; but  if ye forsake him, he will forsake you” (II Chron. 15:2). We must keep on praying and trying, which is not always so easy to do.

One thing is very good-you worry about dying. Some young people seem to think they are immortal and never give a thought to the serious side of life, but living in the area you do, you have seen the reality of death. You are a bit young to be baptized, but that’s not unusual and often works out just fine.

When one of our sons was 13, he wanted to be baptized We asked him some questions; he couldn’t answer all of them and we gave him material to read. Within a couple of days, he had read what we gave him and came back saying, “Now what?” We asked him some more questions and again gave him something to study. Again he did it quickly and came back with the same question, “Now what?” Who were we to stand in his way of serving God? In fact all four of our sons were baptized between the ages of 14 and 16 (as were their mother and father). In our area we have had a lot of young people under 17 bap­tized recently.

The Bible has many examples of young people in their service to God. Some young people started out well and were faithful to God all their lives (Joseph, Samuel, David, Daniel); other young people started well but could not withstand evil influence from others or the temptations of life (Solomon, Joash, Uzziah).

These last three examples illus­trate a very important Bible lesson: we have to be able to stand on our own feet in serving God We cannot rely on strong personalities to save us and we cannot let them take us away from the Truth. In your letter;. you make several references to what others are telling you. In the end, the decision is yours alone to make. And as you go through life serving Christ, remember to rely primarily on him.

I would strongly recommend you don join another church. You want to be where Bible truth is taught and the entire Bible is believed and studied. If you really want to be baptized, do not be overwrought with fear of dying, trust Gods mercy be persistent and I’m sure you will convince the brothers you are truly ready.

Agapee – Phileo, Which?

Dear Bro. Don,

Recent articles in the Tidings seem to support the assumption that the love described by the Greek word agapee is superior to that described by the Greek phileo. In the October issue, Bro. Gil Phillips exhorted us to show the spiritual qualities of “agapee love,” toward each other, while the editorial comments of November commended us to demon­strate “phileo love” by being friendly to our brothers and sisters. This confirms the the opinion that “agapee” is an attribute of God, while “phileo” is of a lower order, an emotion between mortals. However, all hypotheses should be proven and this one fails in the testing. A comparison study gives a surprising result. In describing the strongest bond of love that ever ex­isted, that of the Father for His Son, both words are used.

“The Father loves (agapee) the Son and has given all things into his hand” (John 3:35 NKJV).

“For the Father loves (phileo) the Son and shows him all things that He Himself does; and He will show him greater works than these, that you may marvel” (John 5:20 NKJV).

If phileo does mean friendly, as Young’s Concordance states, why is the word so used in this of all contexts? Surely, as in the former quotation, one would have thought agapee to be more appropriate.

I have pondered this matter for years and have never found a satis­factory explanation. I would welcome the thoughts of others.

Patricia Bartle, Picton, ON

We would appreciate input from readers on this query. For starters, we note the following:

Abbott-Smith Lexicon speaks of agapao (the verb form of agapee) as love which springs from the will while phileo comes from the emotions. Thus one could be commanded to agapao one’s enemies (Matt. 5:44) while phileo would not be used in this sense. God can be spoken of as hav­ing agapee for the world (John 3:16) but He only has phileo to those who phileo Christ (John 16:27). We phileo someone or something because we have a natural affection for him/it. Phileo ideally expresses the affection of the Father for the Son, especially in the context of John 5, which relates the Father giving to the Son all power over life and judgment. The Father had a full and complete affection for the Son.

Christadelphian Fellowships

[This letter was delayed by being sent to our old address and then becoming bogged down in the Canadian mail strike.]

Dear Bro. Don,

Perhaps you would be kind enough to allow me to comment on the letter from Sis. Barbara Booker (August, 1997) which suggests that there is “a very positive and sizeable movement within the Dawn Fellowship for union with the Central Fellowship.” Sis. Booker may be refer­ring to the fact that a number of brethren and sisters previously in the Dawn Fellowship in Eastern Europe have, during the past year, joined the Central Fellowship. Since those involved were introduced to the Truth by a brother [Duncan Heaster] who has now joined the Central Fellowship, it is not surprising many of those who learned the Truth through him have taken the same step. There is, however, no “sizeable movement within the Dawn Fellowship” toward union with Central.

Sis Booker goes on to refer to “the bitter rebukes and slanders from those left behind, who see those who have gone over to Central as ‘castaways,’ ‘reprobates’ and ‘infidels’ who have left the Truth'” Such sentiments do not represent the general attitude within the Dawn Fellowship toward those in Central, as the following excerpts from a recent statement on fellowship should make clear.

“In maintaining our separation we are not judging others, or saying that they will not receive the mercy at the judgment seat that we all need We are simply standing aside, with humility and courtesy, from beliefs and practices that we conscientiously feel are contrary to Scriptural teaching We do not believe that it can be said today who is or is not part of the ‘one body’ of Christ but we do believe that the Christadelphian movement con­tains that body, which will be revealed in its glorious unity in the future” (The Dawn Christadelphian Ecclesial Magazine, April, 1997)

It would be a matter of regret, therefore, if individual members of the Dawn Fellowship have expressed the sentiments cited by Sis Booker However, it would be unfair to leave the impression that such views are not held elsewhere m the Christadelphian community When a number of breth­ren and sisters (including myself) left the Central Fellowship some 10 years ago and joined the Dawn Fellowship, similar indefensible statements were made then by some m Central it being asserted, for example, that to leave the Central Fellowship was to place oneself outside the scope of the atoning work of Christ!

I suspect that Sis Booker herself would not endorse that view But she must surely be aware that views such as the following have been expressed “There is one Christ Body Those who leave the Christ Body and set up other ‘fellowships’ have placed them­selves outside the ecclesia of God if the Central Fellowship is the Christ Body, then logically the [Christ Body] metaphor precludes different ‘bodies,’ when there is only one Christ Body” (Ecclesias in the Lycus Valley, R Abel, 1982)

It’s hard to believe that the late Bro Ron Abel was seriously advancing the notion that eternal salvation hinges on being a member of an ecclesia listed in the CALS Diary Perhaps his aim was to expose the fallacy of this sort of thinking? Whatever the case, it would be reassuring to learn the view that only the Cen­tral Fellowship constitutes the Body of Christ and all other Christadelphians (Unamended, Dawn, Berean, etc ,) are “outside the ecclesia of God” does not represent the prevailing sentiment within the Central Fellowship today

Stephen Camplin, St. John’s NFLD

(Following is an open letter from Bro. Duncan Heaster who is alluded to in the above. It was sent to all members of the Dawn Fellowship.)

My dear brethren and sisters, Greetings in the Lord Jesus Christ.

For some time now it has been an agony of my soul (and these are no poetic words) that the body of the Lord Jesus whom we serve is so di­vided. The 1,000 (or so) ‘Dawn’ Christadelphians (and those whom they baptize) are separate from many other Christadelphians (around 50­-60,000) who believe as we do. Some of the Dawn members in South Africa and Eastern Europe have broken bread with other Christadelphians who believe as we do (in the Central fellowship). I face a choice as to whether to disfellowship them, with all the inevitable division that would cause in the circumstances, or remain in fellowship with them – which it seems to me is the biblical, spiritual thing to do. The reasons for insisting that they be withdrawn from seem to me to be lacking any biblical support. I would ask each of you to prayerfully and carefully consider the following study concerning fellowship. The conclusions are as follows:

• We should fellowship with all who have been validly baptized into the one body of the Lord Jesus Christ and continue to hold the Faith.
• We should rebuke and discipline those in our ecclesia or immediate circle of contact who are weak in doctrine.
• We cannot be responsible for the errors of distant brethren which we hear about. We should not listen to rumors concerning the failures of those we don Y know.
• We should do all that we can to bring about unity between brethren and not disfellowship those who themselves hold and live the One Faith. *Holding the above principles should not lead us to tolerate doctrinal weaknesses on fundamental issues. If we meet a Christadelphian we don Y know, we should make sure he/she believes as we do, and then break bread with him/her.

To refuse fellowship to another believer is a sin; but it is also wrong to open the table of the Lord to anybody, regardless of their belief and behavior.

Seeing that there are many thou­sands of other Christadelphians in the world at this time believing and practicing exactly the same as the Dawn Christadelphians, my recom­mendation is that ‘Dawn’ Christadelphian brethren and sisters (e.g. the readership of Gospel News) make contact with and join fellowship with those other Christadelphians who believe and practice as we do. I will be happy to provide concrete de­tails to enable this.

This is a view I have held for some time, but the time has come to state it openly. Some brethren and sisters in South Africa and Eastern Europe, along with myself have already put these recommendations into practice by breaking bread with local Christadelphians, and it is my hope and prayer that as a united commu­nity we may make a more powerful witness to this present world, and build each other up in the Hope of the Kingdom, for which we all unitedly long

Sincerely your brother in the Truth,

Duncan Heaster; P.O. Box 1903, Vilnius 2012 Lithuania

(Following are extracts from Bro. Duncan’s study which accompanied his open letter.)

One body

There is one body — this is a very common theme in the New Testament. There is one fold, in which are all the true sheep (Jn. 10)…The most serious problem in the Corinthian ecclesia, Paul said, was that they were divided (notice how he begins his letter by addressing this problem, not the incest, drunkenness at the breaking of bread, the false doctrine…).. .There is one vine, and we are the branches (Jn. 15). It’s not that Christ is the trunk and we are the branches We make up the vine, we make up the Lord Jesus Christ in not divided, and therefore, Paul reasons, divisions among brethren should not exist Christ is not divided, and therefore neither should we be (I Cor 1 13,3 3)

If we accept that brothers and sisters are validly baptized into and remain within His body, then we sun-ply must fellowship with them Should we refuse to do this, we are working against the essential purpose of God — to build up the body of His Son now, so that we might exist in that state eternally Causing division within the body is, therefore, a sin which may exclude from the kingdom (I Cor 11 19 alludes to Matt 187) To refuse to fellowship a brother is to effectively say that he is not within the Lord’s body, for when we break bread, we show that we are one bread and one body (I Cor 10 16,17) The purpose of the cross was to gather together in one all God’s children (in 11 52), that the love of the Father and Son might be realized between them (Jn 17 26) If we support division, we are denying the essential aim of the Lord’s sacrifice

Dealing with error

Light has no fellowship with darkness Therefore there is an urgent need to separate from those brethren who, in their doctrine or way of life, have openly rejected the way of God’s Truth, despite repeated and extensive dialogue with them However, our responsibility for withdrawing fellowship cannot go beyond our local context And it must constantly be stressed that we also have a responsibility to fellowship with all who believe and live the one Faith.

We learn from the parable of the tares that the Lord alone will uproot the tares, at the judgment That same parable reveals that the Lord foresaw how his future servants would have a tendency to uproot other believers who were in fact acceptable to him — therefore they should be willing to allow the wheat and tares to grow together, even if they have misgivings about some in the ecclesia.

Guilt by association

It is inevitable there will be moral and doctrinal weakness in the ecclesia The parable of the wheat and tares teaches this, it is not for us to be over-concerned with identifying and rooting up the tares That’s surely the basic lesson the Lord was seeking to put across If there is such a thing as guilt by association, then this parable becomes meaningless

The greatest evidence against the view that we must maintain a totally pure fellowship is to be found in the letters to the seven ecclesias m Rev­elation 2 and 3. The “few” in Sardis who had not defiled their clothes at­tended an apostate ecclesia, and yet they are not seen as “defiled” by the Lord Jesus (Rev 3 4) This is proof positive that there is no such thing as guilt by association with erring members of an ecclesia Smyrna was an ecclesia which received o criticism at all from the Lord they weren’t rebuked for not disfellowshipping the other local ecclesias [which had seri­ous problems] (Rev 2:8-11)

Practical conclusions

If the above reasoning has been followed, we come to the following practical conclusions.

[These are stated in Bro Duncan’s letter to the Dawn Fellowship members]

Duncan Heaster

Agapee – Phileo, Which?

Dear Bro. Don,

Sis. Patricia Bartle’s letter (2/98, pg. 61) reflects the conclusion every thoughtful, open-minded student reaches when examining the Bible’s use of the various Greek words for “love.” She has realized the simple truth that virtually all the ingenious interpretations about three (or four) “kinds” of love – romantic, brotherly and divine – based on four Greek words are not sound Bible exegesis.

Consider the following samples in the standard Greek Old Testament of the first century ecclesias:

I Kgs. 11:1-3 “King Solomon was a lover (phileo) of women.. .and he took strange women.. .concerning whom the Lord forbade the children of Israel, saying, Ye shall not go in to them.. .Solomon chive to these in love (agape).”

Deut. 6:5 “Thou shalt love (agape) the LORD thy God with all thy mind, and with all thy soul, and all thy strength.”

II Sam. 13:15 “Then Amnon hated [Tamar] with very great hatred; for the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love (agape) with which he had loved her”

And note I Timothy 6:10: “The (agape) of money is the root of all evil.”

There are no different “kinds” of love. In Bible terms, we can have a “love affair” with Jesus, with the Truth, with our wife (husband), with our brethren, with our enemies. We can have an illicit love affair or a holy one; it is the quality and the intensity of the love that count.

In Hebrew there is only one word for “love,” as in English. We can “love” gambling, or drink, or money, or we can love God and our neigh­bor. The choice is ours.

The notion that there is a “special” word for “a lower order emotion be­tween mortals,” as Sis. Pat puts it, is spurious. It is actually an idea born of the Calvinist view that the “love” of fallen, depraved humanity must of necessity be of a “lower order.” Sadly, Crudes, Young, Strong and Barclay were all Calvinists and wedded to this idea. So was Nygren whose book Agape and Eros led many otherwise clear thinkers astray.

Let us keep solidly to Bible usage and not the unscriptural ideas of theo­logians.

Alan Eyre, George Town, Cayman Islands

Economics in the Tidings?

Dear Bro. Don,

I would like to respond to objections made toward Bro. Alan Eyre concerning Bro. Alan’s views on the world bank (article 11/97, letter 12/ 97).

The critic wrote, “Do such social­istic or humanistic views belong in the Tidings?’ Scripturally I believe there is a point to be made in defense of Bro. Alan’s remarks. If we look at the Jewish economy as created by God during the Mosaic period, many provisions were made for the poor.

Concerning His own people, all we need do is to study the laws con­cerning the year of jubilee. Further, Exodus 22:23-27 states we are not to end with interest to fellow believers. Leviticus 19:9-10 makes a provision for the stranger by introducing the gleaning law. The gleaning law cer­tainly benefited Ruth who introduced herself as a stranger to Israel.

Through disobedience, in a sense, Israel became a stranger to God in Egypt. Just as Ruth, a stranger, was taken in by Boaz, so Israel was taken out of bondage after years of plead­ing to God. (We need to remember where Ruth’s lineage led to.)

I believe this is evidence that gives us a good spiritual outlook on Bro. Alan’s remarks. Acts of benevolence toward the stranger should not be for­gotten.

(We must always remember that our wealth is God given and can be taken away at any time if God should deem this necessary to fulfill His plan and purpose.)