The vulnerable underbelly of Christadelphianism

John t

Active member
Because this post I made earlier today in the Apologetics forum can get buried there ,I make this double post in the place that it is most likely to be seen; by Christadelphians I posted it in the Christadelphianism forum.

Just to make it clear to all, the following is a summary statement of what I learned from the Christadelphian cult.

Primary is their statement of nonconformity which one third party website describes them:

Christadelphians hold several beliefs that differ from traditional Christian denominations. They reject the Trinity doctrine and believe that Jesus Christ was a man. They do not mingle with other Christians, maintaining that they possess the truth and have no interest in ecumenism. Members of this religion do not vote, do not run for political office, nor engage in war.

from https://www.learnreligions.com/christadelphian-beliefs-and-practices-700276

Their official description of themselves does not contradict the above statement:

Doctrinally, the Christadelphians are unique in Christendom in our understanding of the nature of Christ, and the way in which we are redeemed by his death. We reject as unbiblical the idea that Christ could die as a replacement sacrifice for us, thus covering all our sins forever with that one act. Certainly it is through his sacrifice that we may be forgiven, but only if we walk the path of self-denial that he marked out for us.

from :https://www.learnreligions.com/christadelphian-beliefs-and-practices-700276

Therefore they believe that salvation is both conditional and hyper Arminian.

From the above official site, it is quite easy to see that in the image of themselves, they created their own deity god.

We believe that the Bible is quite clear (emphasis added) in its presentation that Christ is a man. The Son of God, but certainly not God Himself. The bulk of mainstream Christianity has staked its life on the assertion that Jesus is God. However, this is to be rejected... (and they do so by their own authority, discarding what Scripture plainly teaches

Yet they have no problem bastardizing Scriptures to fit their heresies:

Their "official statement" about their deity is:

The Christadelphians believe that the God of the Bible is one, the Father alone (1 Cor. 8:6). God stands alone and unrivaled in the universe, the source of all good and evil (Is. 45:5-7). We reject the idea that the devil is one of Gods' angels that was permitted to rebel in the very heavens (thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven [sic] ) and now wrestles with God for control of the world. We likewise reject the idea of a God with multiple independent personalities as not being in harmony with the teachings of scripture.

Please read the entire passage to see that the Bible does not conform to their heresies

1 Corinthians 5: For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—
6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist
ESV

Even a cave man can read and see that Paul calls both Jesus Christ and God, the Father fully divine. Therefore the little hobgoblin of inconsistency haunts this cult, also.

Thus the cult's beliefs can be summarized:

In their own image they created their own deities, and in their disdain for the clear teachings of Scripture, they propagate their "official lie" to confuse the biblically illiterate by saying that Scripture is clear in what it unequivocally state. Thus the idea of propositional truth is a delusion of fundamentalism.
 

Stephen

Active member
Please read the entire passage to see that the Bible does not conform to their heresies

1 Corinthians 5: For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—
6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist
ESV

Even a cave man can read and see that Paul calls both Jesus Christ and God, the Father fully divine. Therefore the little hobgoblin of inconsistency haunts this cult, also.

Setting aside the propaganda, let's get to the meat of the exposition. The one verse.

Let's read the verses in context, because as one person on this board likes to point out: "EVERY verse ripped from its context is a pretext, without exception." And the poster wants to rip the verse out of its context and is likewise not an exception.

1 Cor 8
4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.


Verse 4 explains to the Corinthians that "there is no God but one"
Verse 6a explains that the Father is that one God, and is the one from whom all things came
Verse 6b explains that Jesus is not that one God, but rather our one lord, and it is through him that all things come, and through him we live.

Seems pretty clear to me. So I ask, how does an intelligent person with reading comprehension come to the idea that Paul calls both Jesus Christ and God "fully divine"? The words "fully divine" are absent from the passage, the chapter, and the bible (depending on translation).


The passage goes on. First it explains how our relationship to the one God is impacted by food:

7 But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.


Then it explains how we live through the one Lord

9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.


Paul, makes things clear. There is one God, the Father. There is one lord among many lords (he's the lord of lords you see). What he does not say, nor explain in any way is that "Jesus Christ and God, the Father fully divine".


This particular Christadelphian does have a soft underbelly though :)
 
Last edited:

John t

Active member
Setting aside the propaganda, let's get to the meat of the exposition. The one verse.

It is interesting that you want me to deal with what you propose is the central issue, but you fail to deal with the summarized core values (from Christadelphian sources) of your cult which I posted earlier:


Thus the cult's beliefs can be summarized:

In their own image they created their own deities, and in their disdain for the clear teachings of Scripture, they propagate their "official lie" to confuse the biblically illiterate by saying that Scripture is clear in what it unequivocally state. Thus the idea of propositional truth is a delusion of fundamentalism.

Your cult has no truth because it fails by words and deeds to uphold the supremacy of the Bible as the primary revelation of God talking to us.
Yet they have no problem bastardizing Scriptures to fit their heresies:

Their "official statement" about their deity is:

The Christadelphians believe that the God of the Bible is one, the Father alone (1 Cor. 8:6). God stands alone and unrivaled in the universe, the source of all good and evil (Is. 45:5-7). We reject the idea that the devil is one of Gods' angels that was permitted to rebel in the very heavens (thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven [sic] ) and now wrestles with God for control of the world. We likewise reject the idea of a God with multiple independent personalities as not being in harmony with the teachings of scripture. ( Your Red Herring is noticed, but not commented about)

Please read the entire passage to see that the Bible does not conform to their heresies

1 Corinthians 5: For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—
6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist
ESV

That snippet proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are taking things out of context to support extra biblical things. Since you will not deal with my accurate summation of your cult's belief system dismissing it as "propaganda", why should I oblige myself to answer your out of context statements?
 

Stephen

Active member
It is interesting that you want me to deal with what you propose is the central issue, but you fail to deal with the summarized core values (from Christadelphian sources) of your cult which I posted earlier:

Your cult has no truth because it fails by words and deeds to uphold the supremacy of the Bible as the primary revelation of God talking to us.

That snippet proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are taking things out of context to support extra biblical things. Since you will not deal with my accurate summation of your cult's belief system dismissing it as "propaganda", why should I oblige myself to answer your out of context statements?

I see. When the bible is brought forth, you don't want to talk about it while at the same time accusing me of not upholding it. But rather, you want to discuss the words of men.

When you want to talk about the bible, Christadelphians are generally quite happy to engage, but since you don't want to do so, I'll bow out at this time.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
Because this post I made earlier today in the Apologetics forum can get buried there ,I make this double post in the place that it is most likely to be seen; by Christadelphians I posted it in the Christadelphianism forum.

Just to make it clear to all, the following is a summary statement of what I learned from the Christadelphian cult.

Primary is their statement of nonconformity which one third party website describes them:

Christadelphians hold several beliefs that differ from traditional Christian denominations. They reject the Trinity doctrine and believe that Jesus Christ was a man. They do not mingle with other Christians, maintaining that they possess the truth and have no interest in ecumenism. Members of this religion do not vote, do not run for political office, nor engage in war.

from https://www.learnreligions.com/christadelphian-beliefs-and-practices-700276

Their official description of themselves does not contradict the above statement:

Doctrinally, the Christadelphians are unique in Christendom in our understanding of the nature of Christ,

No they aren't.

and the way in which we are redeemed by his death. We reject as unbiblical the idea that Christ could die as a replacement sacrifice for us, thus covering all our sins forever with that one act. Certainly it is through his sacrifice that we may be forgiven, but only if we walk the path of self-denial that he marked out for us.

from :https://www.learnreligions.com/christadelphian-beliefs-and-practices-700276

Therefore they believe that salvation is both conditional and hyper Arminian.

From the above official site, it is quite easy to see that in the image of themselves, they created their own deity god.

We believe that the Bible is quite clear (emphasis added) in its presentation that Christ is a man. The Son of God, but certainly not God Himself. The bulk of mainstream Christianity has staked its life on the assertion that Jesus is God. However, this is to be rejected... (and they do so by their own authority, discarding what Scripture plainly teaches

Yet they have no problem bastardizing Scriptures to fit their heresies:

Their "official statement" about their deity is:

The Christadelphians believe that the God of the Bible is one, the Father alone (1 Cor. 8:6). God stands alone and unrivaled in the universe, the source of all good and evil (Is. 45:5-7). We reject the idea that the devil is one of Gods' angels that was permitted to rebel in the very heavens (thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven [sic] ) and now wrestles with God for control of the world. We likewise reject the idea of a God with multiple independent personalities as not being in harmony with the teachings of scripture.

Please read the entire passage to see that the Bible does not conform to their heresies

1 Corinthians 5: For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—
6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist
ESV

Even a cave man can read and see that Paul calls both Jesus Christ and God,

edit personal comments

Even Israel had one God, Yahweh, and one Lord, King David. Same thing. It's all there in your Bible. So will you now exchange your ignorance for Scriptural facts?

the Father fully divine. Therefore the little hobgoblin of inconsistency haunts this cult, also.

Thus the cult's beliefs can be summarized:

In their own image they created their own deities, and in their disdain for the clear teachings of Scripture, they propagate their "official lie" to confuse the biblically illiterate by saying that Scripture is clear in what it unequivocally state. Thus the idea of propositional truth is a delusion of fundamentalism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

John t

Active member
No they aren't.

So, based on your say-so and without any evidence to the contrary, we are to accept what you say, and disregard that site about comparative cults in Christianity. Apologetics doesn't work that way.

You all fail to deal with the summarized core values (from Christadelphian sources) of your cult which I posted earlier:

Thus the cult's beliefs can be summarized:

In their own image they created their own deities, and in their disdain for the clear teachings of Scripture, they propagate their "official lie" to confuse the biblically illiterate by saying that Scripture is clear in what it unequivocally state. Thus the idea of propositional truth is a delusion of fundamentalism.

BTW if you want to reply with insults, that is OK. I say that because it DEMONstrates how bankrupt of Scripture-supported facts and lack of civility toward others having differing views are hallmarks of cults such as yours having aberrant views of Jesus Christ, snd who get their theology from the Bible in its context.

I will not be surprised if your post disappears wholly or in part.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
So, based on your say-so and without any evidence to the contrary, we are to accept what you say, and disregard that site about comparative cults in Christianity. Apologetics doesn't work that way.

Christadelphians are not unique in their understanding of the nature of Christ. This is common knowledge. So why don't you know?

You all fail to deal with the summarized core values (from Christadelphian sources) of your cult which I posted earlier:



BTW if you want to reply with insults, that is OK. I say that because it DEMONstrates how bankrupt of Scripture-supported facts and lack of civility toward others having differing views are hallmarks of cults such as yours having aberrant views of Jesus Christ, snd who get their theology from the Bible in its context.

I will not be surprised if your post disappears wholly or in part.
 

John t

Active member
So why don't you know?
So why haven't you provided a a Scripture-based answer in context as proof of that contention?

  1. Do you have Bible-based proof of your Unitarian views?
  2. Where is your Scripture proofs that Satan is NOT a fallen angel?
  3. What verses support the non-existence of Hell, when Jesus said it was real?
  4. What supports your cull's view of annihilation of both the body and mind?
Since you will not be able to answer those questions, how then can you say that your group is based in the Bible?
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
So why haven't you provided a a Scripture-based answer in context as proof of that contention?

Whether Christadelphians have a "unique" view of the nature of Jesus Christ, or not, has nothing to do with Scripture.

  1. Do you have Bible-based proof of your Unitarian views?

Jesus Christ's God?

  1. Where is your Scripture proofs that Satan is NOT a fallen angel?

Why would I need any?

  1. What verses support the non-existence of Hell, when Jesus said it was real?

You seem to have missed what the question at hand IS. The question is not whether "Hell" or "Gehenna" is "real" but what it IS.

  1. What supports your cull's view of annihilation of both the body and mind?

What cult would that be?

Since you will not be able to answer those questions, how then can you say that your group is based in the Bible?

It doesn't seem that much of a sensible dialogue is going to be possible with you.
 

John t

Active member
Whether Christadelphians have a "unique" view of the nature of Jesus Christ, or not, has nothing to do with Scripture.

Nothing more to say.

With that reply, you remove yourself far away from the Bible, and traditional Christianity. It is also noted that YOU cannot answer simple questions about your beliefs; it is not me who refuses to have any fact-based dialog:

It doesn't seem that much of a sensible dialogue is going to be possible with you.

There is ZERO truth in that statement of yours. Your own words condemn you and Christadelphianism.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
Nothing more to say.

With that reply, you remove yourself far away from the Bible, and traditional Christianity. It is also noted that YOU cannot answer simple questions about your beliefs; it is not me who refuses to have any fact-based dialog:

Who currently has what views concerning the nature of Jesus isn't going to be found in your Bible is it?

Your responses are unbelievable.

There is ZERO truth in that statement of yours. Your own words condemn you and Christadelphianism.
 

John t

Active member
Who currently has what views concerning the nature of Jesus isn't going to be found in your Bible is it?


Please post it again; this time using better English sentence structure.


Your responses are unbelievable.

Your posts are implausible speculations having no support from any verses taken in their context from the Bible.
 

TrevorL

Active member
Greetings John t,
Just to make it clear to all, the following is a summary statement of what I learned from the Christadelphian cult.
Your thread seems to have failed to some extent and I was a bit cautious to respond to all that you have stated, especially with respect to the tone of your statements, for example the first line of your post you call the Christadelphians a cult, nevertheless I will briefly respond to a few of your statements and allow you to respond on some of these aspects.
Primary is their statement of nonconformity which one third party website describes them: Christadelphians hold several beliefs that differ from traditional Christian denominations. They reject the Trinity doctrine and believe that Jesus Christ was a man.
Yes, we do not have an open fellowship with those of different persuasions, and yes we do not believe in the Trinity. We believe that there is One God, Yahweh, God the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ was and is a man, the Son of God, conceived and born as God the Father was and is his father, with Mary as his mother Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35, John 1:14. By the time of his ministry he was also the Son of God by the perfection and fullness of his Divine character, he was full of grace and truth John 1:14. He is also the Son of God by virtue of his resurrection and being granted immortality, and he is now seated at the right hand of God His Father, in God the Father's throne Psalm 110:1. Nevertheless, despite this exalted position he is still a man.
Members of this religion do not vote, do not run for political office, nor engage in war.
Yes, that is correct. We are on a pilgrimage to the Kingdom of God to be established when Jesus returns.
Doctrinally, the Christadelphians are unique in Christendom in our understanding of the nature of Christ, and the way in which we are redeemed by his death. We reject as unbiblical the idea that Christ could die as a replacement sacrifice for us, thus covering all our sins forever with that one act. Certainly it is through his sacrifice that we may be forgiven, but only if we walk the path of self-denial that he marked out for us.
There may be others that accept that the sacrifice of Christ was as our representative and not as our substitute. As our representative we understand that we must follow his example and live the crucified / resurrected life Galatians 2:20. Forgiveness is part of this process.
Therefore they believe that salvation is both conditional and hyper Arminian.
Few of us would understand the term "Arminian", but we most probably reject both Arminianism and Calvinism and especially the extreme forms of Calvinism. Perhaps to offer a statement, we accept that the Gospel is preached and then we believe this Gospel for salvation. There is some element of freewill in our belief of the Gospel. We can accept or reject the Gospel. We may not be able to analyse all the factors involved in this process, whereby some accept and others reject.
Even a cave man can read and see that Paul calls both Jesus Christ and God, the Father fully divine.
I accept that 1 Corinthians 8:6 is teaching that there is One God the Father. This can be supported from many other passages. Please also consider Stephen's response on 1 Corinthians 8:6.
  1. What verses support the non-existence of Hell, when Jesus said it was real?
  2. What supports your cull's view of annihilation of both the body and mind?
Since you will not be able to answer those questions, how then can you say that your group is based in the Bible?
Perhaps we could discuss two of your questions (originally 3. and 4.). We do believe in the usage of the word "hell" in the following passage. Perhaps we could start with question 1. (was 3.) by you explaining how you understand David's use of the word "hell" here.
Acts 2:30–31 (KJV): 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

And the second question (was 4.), how do you understand the following passages:
Genesis 3:17–19 (KJV): 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Psalm 6:4–5 (KJV): Return, O LORD, deliver my soul: oh save me for thy mercies’ sake. 5 For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?
Psalm 146:3–4 (KJV): 3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. 4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
Daniel 12:2–3 (KJV): 2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

The above should be sufficient for starters.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

John t

Active member
Your thread seems to have failed to some extent and I was a bit cautious to respond to all that you have stated, especially with respect to the tone of your statements, for example the first line of your post you call the Christadelphians a cult, nevertheless I will briefly respond to a few of your statements and allow you to respond on some of these aspects.

Trevor, Thank you for your tone and your willingness to discuss things. it is refreshing. therefore I respond in kind.

You took offense in my calling Christadelphianism a cult. This is the framework which I used to apply that definition:

https://www.yourdictionary.com/cult
The definition of a cult is a group of people with extreme dedication to a certain leader or set of beliefs that are often viewed as odd by others, or is an excessive and misplaced admiration for someone or something, or is something that is popular among a certain segment of society.

Because that definition fits Christalphians and what you posted about yourselves, it is not wrong or a personal swipe to call your church a cult. It simply is a fact.

For example, y'all reject

  • the Hypostatic Union
  • the Trinity
  • the Vicarious Atonement
  • The Bible as the final and absolute authority over all the church
  • etc
This list is merely a summary, and not exhaustive; nevertheless each of these rejections place your church under the "cult umbrella" and by definition, produce other cult-like rejections of established Christian doctrines. Those things are clarified by such creeds as the Apostle's Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.
Perhaps we could discuss two of your questions (originally 3. and 4.). We do believe in the usage of the word "hell" in the following passage. Perhaps we could start with question 1. (was 3.) by you explaining how you understand David's use of the word "hell" here.
Acts 2:30–31 (KJV): 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

I have an axiom about apologetics that has never failed: EVERY verse ripped from its context is a pretext, without exception.

Therefore, I do not discuss single verses to explain things. I submit this as an effort to have a rational discussion because it provides a more full explanation than the verses you cited.

HELL. From the international Standard Bible Encyclopedia
hel (see SHEOL; HADES; GEHENNA):
1. The Word in the King James Version:
The English word, from a Teutonic root meaning "to hide" or "cover," had originally the significance of the world of the dead generally, and in this sense is used by Chaucer, Spenser, etc., and in the Creed ("He descended into hell"); compare the English Revised Version Preface. Now the word has come to mean almost exclusively the place of punishment of the lost or finally impenitent; the place of torment of the wicked. In the King James Version of the Scriptures, it is the rendering adopted in many places in the Old Testament for the Hebrew word she'ol (in 31 out of 65 occurrences of that word it is so translated), and in all places, save one (1Co 15:55) in the New Testament, for the Greek word Hades (this word occurs 11 times; in 10 of these it is translated "hell"; 1Co 15:55 reads "grave," with "hell" in the margin). In these cases the word has its older general meaning, though in Lu 16:23 (parable of Rich Man and Lazarus) it is specially connected with a place of "torment," in contrast with the "Abraham's bosom" to which Lazarus is taken (16:22).​
2. The Word in the Revised Version:
In the above cases the Revised Version (British and American) has introduced changes, replacing "hell" by "Sheol" in the passages in the Old Testament (the English Revised Version retains "hell" in Isa 14:9,15; the American Standard Revised Version makes no exception), and by "Hades" in the passages in the New Testament (see under these words).​
3. Gehenna:
Besides the above uses, and more in accordance with the modern meaning, the word "hell" is used in the New Testament in the King James Version as the equivalent of Gehenna (12 t; Mt 5:22,29; 10:28, etc.). the Revised Version (British and American) in these cases puts "Gehenna" in the margin. Originally the Valley of Hinnom, near Jerusalem, Gehenna became among the Jews the synonym for the place of torment in the future life (the "Gehenna of fire," Mt 5:22, etc.; see GEHENNA).​
4. Tartarus:
In yet one other passage in the New Testament (2Pe 2:4), "to cast down to hell" is used (the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)) to represent the Greek tartaroo, ("to send into Tartarus"). Here it stands for the place of punishment of the fallen angels: "spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell, and committed them to pits (or chains) of darkness" (compare Jude 1:6; but also Mt 25:41). Similar ideas are found in certain of the Jewish apocalyptic books (Book of Enoch, Book of Jubilees, Apocrypha Baruch, with apparent reference to Ge 6:1-4; compare ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT).​
On theological aspect, see PUNISHMENT, EVERLASTING. For literature, see references in above-named arts., and compare article "Hell" by Dr. D. Salmond in HDB.​

James Orr

Gotta go now
 

TrevorL

Active member
Greetings again John t,
You took offense in my calling Christadelphianism a cult.
I appreciate your response, but from my perspective what we believe is the simple Bible truth, the Gospel preached by Jesus and the Apostles. I always associate the word "cult" with those who have almost an absolute obsession with weird ideas and practices, and my mental recollection is such movements as Ku Klux Klan and some fire ceremonies, or even extreme Pentecostal groups trying to exorcise devils. Thus from another dictionary this aspect comes first, and I suggest that your use of this word has that initial inference and also what I underline:
1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies. 2. a group that devotes itself to or venerates a person, ideal, fad, etc. 3. a. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist.
For example, y'all reject: the Hypostatic Union, the Trinity, the Vicarious Atonement
Yes, but these are not simply and clearly taught in the Scriptures, but are very developed ideas argued over many centuries. So your claim that we are a "cult" is an abusive label.
The Bible as the final and absolute authority over all the church
This is our first statement in our statement of faith and is part of my personal experience in discussion with my brethren. I suggest that your insistence of your first three items is contrary to this claim and two of my family were ostracised by a Baptist Church because they did not accept the Trinity.
Those things are clarified by such creeds as the Apostle's Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.
I find no problem with the Apostle's Creed, but I have never read anything so ridiculous as the Athanasian Creed. Are you a Catholic as many Protestant Churches will accept the Nicean Creed, but will not fully endorse the Athanasian Creed. I suggest that this is getting closer to your definition of cult, and no real evidence of the absolute respect for the Bible teaching and authority.
I have an axiom about apologetics that has never failed: EVERY verse ripped from its context is a pretext, without exception.
Therefore, I do not discuss single verses to explain things. I submit this as an effort to have a rational discussion because it provides a more full explanation than the verses you cited.
That is fine, but eventually I would like a discussion of the verses that I quoted, and I suggest that the sentence upon Adam is important as it undercuts the concept of immortal souls and hence everlasting torments. I would also especially like your explanation of whether some of the places translated hell can or should be translated the grave, and I believe that this is the correct rendition in Acts 2:30-31. Did Jesus go to hell, or was he laid in the tomb awaiting resurrection?

Kind regards
Trevor
 

John t

Active member
I appreciate your response, but from my perspective what we believe is the simple Bible truth, the Gospel preached by Jesus and the Apostles. I always associate the word "cult" with those who have almost an absolute obsession with weird ideas and practices, and my mental recollection is such movements as Ku Klux Klan and some fire ceremonies, or even extreme Pentecostal groups trying to exorcise devils. Thus from another dictionary this aspect comes first, and I suggest that your use of this word has that initial inference and also what I underline:
1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies. 2. a group that devotes itself to or venerates a person, ideal, fad, etc. 3. a. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist.
There is much to unpack in that reply, so let me take it slowly and without rancor. so when I notice something that does not square with another poster stated, I will attack that discrepancy. In doing so, I am not attacking the author of the statement, but I am exposing the inconsistency. So here is the first one:

You wrote:
...we believe is the simple Bible truth, the Gospel preached by Jesus and the Apostles.

The first thing I noted is the possibility of major equivocation. What is missing in your statement is Acts, Hebrews and Revelation in the New Testament, and you did not include any mention of the 39 books of the Old Testament. That is a substantial omission
The poster OLG posted this:
Whether Christadelphians have a "unique" view of the nature of Jesus Christ, or not, has nothing to do with Scripture.
There is an outright denial of the sufficiency of the Bible as the all-sufficient foundation for any group calling itself "Christian". That is a major shift that John Thomas concocted and plagiarized in Scotland. It differs from historical Christianity in like your group's stated beliefs it omits the Old Testament, and other books of the Bible.

So, while there are so many off shoots of churches from its inception, at Pentecost, c. 30 AD, none of them bastardized the Bible is the same way as y'all Christadelphians do it.

Therefore, despite the fact that you dislike the term "cult" I sincerly believe it is because of the word-games that posters use. It is an accurate adjective
 

TrevorL

Active member
Greetings again John t,
The first thing I noted is the possibility of major equivocation. What is missing in your statement is Acts, Hebrews and Revelation in the New Testament, and you did not include any mention of the 39 books of the Old Testament. That is a substantial omission
We have writings from two of the twelve Apostles, Peter and John, and the Book of Revelation is part of John's writing revealed to him by Jesus. Paul was also an Apostle and I believe Luke, the companion of Paul was the writer, and Hebrews could be written by Paul, and a few conjecture other writers. If anything Christadelphians affirm the OT more than most Protestants, and we give emphasis to the promise concerning Eve and her seed, and the promises to Abraham and David. We also refer to many of the OT prophecies concerning the future Kingdom of God and the restoration of Israel, lacking in the preaching of many Protestant Churches. So your statement is lacking in substance.
There is an outright denial of the sufficiency of the Bible as the all-sufficient foundation for any group calling itself "Christian".
I do not endorse his statement and I am not sure exactly what he is saying. Our understanding of the nature of Christ is that he was a human, a man, a descendant of Adam through Mary his mother. The Bible is the basis of this understanding and this is clearly and simply taught in the Bible.
That is a major shift that John Thomas concocted and plagiarized in Scotland.
John Thomas had little contact with Scotland apart from visiting there on two of his tours of the UK, well after he started to preach the Gospel. He was based in the USA and gradually developed his overall understanding over many years before visiting the UK.
It differs from historical Christianity in like your group's stated beliefs it omits the Old Testament, and other books of the Bible.
Again, a repeat of your false assessment.
So, while there are so many off shoots of churches from its inception, at Pentecost, c. 30 AD, none of them bastardized the Bible is the same way as y'all Christadelphians do it.
Therefore, despite the fact that you dislike the term "cult" I sincerly believe it is because of the word-games that posters use. It is an accurate adjective
Again, no substance in your claims, or in your reply in total, but plenty of vindictiveness. It looks like Stephen made the correct decision not to engage further, and possibly he had encountered your methods and empty claims previously.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

John t

Active member
I do not endorse his statement and I am not sure exactly what he is saying. Our understanding of the nature of Christ is that he was a human, a man, a descendant of Adam through Mary his mother. The Bible is the basis of this understanding and this is clearly and simply taught in the Bible.
OK, neither of you post for the other as "sock puppets"; that is understandable. I was merely pointing to the discrepancies between you two.

We have writings from two of the twelve Apostles, Peter and John, and the Book of Revelation is part of John's writing revealed to him by Jesus. Paul was also an Apostle and I believe Luke, the companion of Paul was the writer, and Hebrews could be written by Paul, and a few conjecture other writers.

Matthew was also an Apostle. Do y'all place him on the same level as Peter. and John?

If anything Christadelphians affirm the OT more than most Protestants,
The people in my church believe ALL 66 nooks, comprising both the Old and New Testament are fully authoritative, reliable, and that ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16) Can the Christadelphians adhere to that?

I ask that because I have the suspicion that your statement may be unintentionally equivocating; here's why. You state that you believe in the historicity of Eve. Because she can be verified using New Testament sources, it is not the same as believing that all of Genesis, including the fall of Adam, and the Table of Nations etc. are historical facts, having theological consequences lasting forever. Can you see the difference in those two statements?

Again, no substance in your claims, or in your reply in total, but plenty of vindictiveness. It looks like Stephen made the correct decision not to engage further, and possibly he had encountered your methods and empty claims previously.
CARM is a discussion/debate forum. As such there will be a give and take. I posted earlier to the effect that I would not go personal, and I kept that promise. However you used the word "vindictive" to describe my posts. That is a word that describes a personal animus towards another, seeking revenge. Totally, I reject that word as it is inappropriate.

It is never wrong to ask another person to describe the source of their beliefs to further a discussion. However, it is totally wrong to do that in order to condemn another. I will not go there. It is not in my character to do so.

As Stephen chose to do, you are free to leave. All I am doing is asking you "Where is the Scripture that causes you to believe X, Y and Z?" Sorry if that line of inquiry causes you to be upset.
 
Last edited:

John t

Active member
Greetings again John t,

Yes we accept the 66 books.

Kind regards
Trevor

My original statement was this:

The people in my church believe ALL 66 nooks, comprising both the Old and New Testament are fully authoritative, reliable, and that ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16) Can the Christadelphians adhere to that?

For some reason, you truncated it to this:

John t said:
The people in my church believe ALL 66 books

Why you did so I can only guess, but certainly you did not attempt to deal with the central question of my post, which is "Can the Christadelphians adhere to that?" ... meaning the standard that Paul stated in 2 Timothy 3:16.

Nor have you dealt with other issues I brought up, all central to the definition of the historical term, "Christian" By that, I am referring to the first usage of the term, "Christian".

Acts 11:26
And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
 
Top