Bro. Roberts and Winking at Error
In The Christadelphian for September 1885 Bro. Roberts published an article on fellowship in which he made a number of points, three of which are quoted below:-
8. That we are not at liberty to receive any one who denies or refuses to believe any of them (the elements of the truth), because the receiving of such would open the way for the currency of their principles among us, with the tendency of leavening the whole community. "A man himself believing the truth, but willing to wink at its denial among those in fellowship... becomes, by this willingness, an offender against the law of Christ"The elements of the Truth are so mutually related that the displacement of one undermines the foundation of the whole.
9. A man himself believing the truth, but willing to wink at its denial among those in fellowship in any of its essential elements, becomes, by this willingness, an offender against the law of Christ, which requires the faithful maintenance of the whole. Faithful servants of Christ cannot unite with such, on the ground that though he hold the truth himself, such a man is responsible for the error of those whom he would admit, and therefore becomes the channel of a similar responsibility to those who may endorse him in fellowship:- He that biddeth him God-speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
10. That it is the duty of the friends of the truth to uphold it as a basis of union among themselves by refusing to receive either those who deny any part of it, or those who would receive those so denying.
In the ecclesias today we see the tragic results of a Central Fellowship which is unwilling to cleanse itself of error!
In the same year Bro. Roberts wrote, "There would soon be no truth. Such was the remark of a sister a few days ago, in reference to the effect of complying with a proposal that had been made to the ecclesia with which she was associated. The remark embodies a thought well worth consideration of all who favour the lax theory of fellowship which some are disposed to advocate. If it be true that we are not responsible for the doctrines of those with whom we helpfully assemble, why should we come away from the churches and chapels? Why sacrifice the advantages and comforts of popular communions if it is only the Father we fellowship, and not those with whom we may identify ourselves? The theory is a mischievous one, and it will work mischievous results in the long run if it obtain currency." Sad to say, the theory mentioned above has "gained currency", and in the ecclesias today we see the tragic results of a Central Fellowship which is unwilling to cleanse itself of error! But "What saith the scripture?"