The Christadelphian, February 1959, John Carter

“The Editor and the B.A.S.F.”

Bro. B. S. Snelling has issued another circular, for the sight of which we are indebted to brethren who have received it. It reads like an effort at all costs to justify the course that has been adopted by the Minority brethren. There is frequent overstatement and distortion of facts. One correspondent requested we deal particularly with two specific charges, and although we had decided that if at all possible we would bring this contention to an end, we have sent a letter to bro. Snelling and publish the following as an open letter, so that brethren can judge both the methods and the statements made in this war of circulars. It is vain for bro. Snelling to describe our pointing out that he has espoused the errors of “an Australian brother” as a “red herring”. The resemblance of the views he has published to those doctrines of Adamic condemnation resisted 60 years ago, is too evident. We hope this is our last word on this matter, whatever may come out as a rejoinder.

An Open Letter

January 1959.

Dear bro. Snelling.—You have chosen a course which we much regret but which we must accept. It was my intention to cease from further strife: so long as discussion could help it had to be undertaken, but there is a point beyond which contention ceases to have profit and can only engender evil. However, a copy of your circular “Keep that which is committed to thy trust” has been sent to me by a brother who says that your charges against me, particularly at the foot of col. 2, page 1, have disturbed some and he has asked for my comments. Your charge is twofold: (a) that I allege that the B.A.S.F. is not an adequate test of doctrinal soundness, (b) that I regard the B.A.S.F. as faulty and that I referred to a clause in it about which I said “I have always recognized it to be not merely ambiguous in expression but defective in statement”.

These charges are very misleading, and I cannot think you are unaware that as stated they gravely misrepresent my position. The first statement has already been answered (see The Christadelphian, 1958, page 510) and your repetition of it is, therefore, the more difficult to understand. May I say again that error has to be refuted by the Scriptures which are the recognized authority. It is possible for an error to be formulated that is not specifically provided for in the Statement of Faith. The errors which have been rebutted in the past have been dealt with from the Word of God and not by appeal to the Statement of Faith. For example, the errors of Edward Turney were not covered by the Statement of Faith, and so far as I remember from reading the printed discussions no reference was made to the Statement of Faith. It must be so now. I therefore took the ground that the views of the “certain Australian brother” were contrary to Scripture. His views may or may not have been covered by the Statement of Faith, but whether they are or not does not affect the point. If the Statement of Faith is to be used as the absolute appeal and any views not defined in it have to be accepted, then this must open the door for many possible errors. Alternatively, you must attribute to the brethren who drew up the Statement of Faith an omniscience which enabled them to provide for every contingency that could arise from the speculations of men.

With regard to (b): If the whole background were told, the weakness of your position would have been evident. In our correspondence I have pointed out to you that the Statement of Faith, while an excellent effort to define our beliefs, has the limitations that belong to all human effort. May I, in this connection, cite by way of illustration the Foundation clause which reads:

“The Foundation. That the book currently known as the Bible, consisting of the Scriptures of Moses, the prophets, and the apostles, is the only source of knowledge concerning God and His purposes at present extant or available in the earth, and that the same were wholly given by inspiration of God in the writers, and are consequently without error in all parts of them, except such as may be due to errors of transcription or translation.”

Now the Bible consists of more than the Scriptures of Moses, the prophets and the apostles. Many psalms, the writings of Solomon and, for anything we know, some of the histories, were not the work of prophets. Luke, James and Jude were not apostles. Either, then, the definition is defective or by it we should exclude from the Canon the writings of these men. Which of these alternatives do you accept?

If someone said they accepted as inspired the Book of Enoch, or the Shepherd of Hermas, how would you rebut their claims? It could be said that you accept Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, although not written by a prophet, and therefore you cannot logically by your Foundation Clause exclude other writings. If you reject Hermas or Clement, why do you accept Luke and James? Strictly construed the definition restricts the New Testament Scriptures to the writings of apostles. We all know what was intended by the Clause, and we accept what it was intended to define; and on the whole the definition has served us well. But that is not the point at issue.

You know that the Reunion Committee drew up a clause on Inspiration for the Final Statement. You were present and heard the limitations of the Clause in the B.A.S.F. discussed and I believe you assented to the adoption of the clause in the Final Statement. You must have heard the advantages of the new clause set out at the meetings of delegates which were held to discuss the Reunion Statement. You were also concerned with the inclusion of the clauses on Military Service and on resurrectional responsibility in the Final Statement, which are an improvement on the references to these matters in the Statement of Faith. My own aim has not been to question these doctrines but to strengthen the definition of them. Is it honest or honourable to present these facts, which you must know, in the guise of a charge that I regard the B.A.S.F. as “faulty” and “defective in statement”, and so try to create prejudice?

Do you yourself regard as beyond question, as fully adequate in its definition, the Foundation Clause? Or are you here doing that which you so freely accuse me of doing—drawing a “red herring” across the discussion?

This Clause concerns the Inspiration of the Scriptures. A real issue could have been raised if I had used the words “faulty” or “defective” with regard to the Scriptures or the doctrines of Scripture. But your attitude on this issue illustrates your method with regard to (a). If your words are taken literally, it would seem that you are prepared to accept doctrine opposed to Scripture on the ground that it is not covered by the Statement of Faith, and yet to follow the Statement of Faith implicitly even when you must recognize its limitations.

Let me add what I have said more than once. Our Statement of Faith is an honest and worthy effort to define our faith and we are indebted to those who drew it up; and, despite your many accusations, in each of the reunions in recent years the B.A.S.F. has been recognized by all taking part as setting forth the truths of Scripture to be believed as the basis of fellowship.

Sincerely your brother,

John Carter.