The vulnerable underbelly of Christadelphianism

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
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?

Whatever made you think Paul was referring to the 66 books in your canon?

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.
 

John t

Active member
Whatever made you think Paul was referring to the 66 books in your canon?

I have no canon because I wrote none of it.

What hubris gave you guys the right to create a "Christadelphian Bible"? The last written book accepted as Scripture is 3 John dated around 96.

Therefore, your question about Paul knowing that 66 books in the Old and New Testaments is anachronistically inaccurate. For sure Paul knew that there would be other books added to the NT canon other than what he wrote, but to assume that he knew that there would be exactly 27 books in the NT is simply a guess having no reality behind it.

The earliest attempt of codification of the NT is the work of Marcion c.140. It is also called the Marturian Canon But that is beside the point. I do expect to get a run around on this question; I post it anyway to get clarification Can y'all affirm and adhere to the standards set by Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16-17?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
I have no canon because I wrote none of it.

Oh is that so? So whose canon do you serve and on what evidence?

What hubris gave you guys the right to create a "Christadelphian Bible"? The last written book accepted as Scripture is 3 John dated around 96.

I never created such a thing.

Therefore, your question about Paul knowing that 66 books in the Old and New Testaments is anachronistically inaccurate. For sure Paul knew that there would be other books added to the NT canon other than what he wrote, but to assume that he knew that there would be exactly 27 books in the NT is simply a guess having no reality behind it.

So when Timothy received Paul's first letter to him, he thought to himself, "O goody, another addition to the canon!"

Right?

The earliest attempt of codification of the NT is the work of Marcion c.140. It is also called the Marturian Canon

These are not the same thing. And why didn't either of these get it right and have a list of your 66 books? Do tell.

But that is beside the point. I do expect to get a run around on this question; I post it anyway to get clarification Can y'all affirm and adhere to the standards set by Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16-17?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Well I don't think anyone should ignorantly suppose the word "scripture" amounts to a canon of your personal choice.
 

TrevorL

Active member
Greetings again John t,
Can the Christadelphians adhere to that?
Yes.
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".
The word Christian today is applied to people who believe ideas that do not represent the original Gospel. For example some "Christians" accept and promulgate the Athanasian Creed.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

John t

Active member
The word Christian today is applied to people who believe ideas that do not represent the original Gospel. For example some "Christians" accept and promulgate the Athanasian Creed.
Hello, Trevor.

from https://www.rca.org/about/theology/creeds-and-confessions/the-athanasian-creed/

The Athanasian Creed is named for Athanasius, a fourth-century bishop and prominent defender of Trinitarianism. The creed, which has Latin origins, declares key beliefs about the Trinity, specifically, the equal nature of the three persons. It is one of three creeds accepted by the Reformed Church in America.
No, I am not a member of that church, but since this is the second time (I think) that you brought it up, let's discuss it.

I will post it below. Please be so kind as to tell us which tenets are unacceptable because they do not conform to Scripture Please note that the word "catholic" begins with a lower case c every time it is written. Thus it means "universal" and not Roman Catholic



ATHANASIAN CREED
  1. Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith.
  2. Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally.
  3. Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being.
  4. For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another.
  5. But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty.
  6. What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit.
  7. Uncreated is the Father; uncreated is the Son; uncreated is the Spirit.
  8. The Father is infinite; the Son is infinite; the Holy Spirit is infinite.
  9. Eternal is the Father; eternal is the Son; eternal is the Spirit: And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal; as there are not three uncreated and unlimited beings, but one who is uncreated and unlimited.
  10. Almighty is the Father; almighty is the Son; almighty is the Spirit: And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty.
  11. Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God.
  12. Thus the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord: And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord.
  13. As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords.
  14. The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten; the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father; the Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son.
  15. Thus there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three spirits.
  16. And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other; but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons.
  17. Whoever wants to be saved should think thus about the Trinity.
  18. It is necessary for eternal salvation that one also faithfully believe that our Lord Jesus Christ became flesh.
  19. For this is the true faith that we believe and confess: That our Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son, is both God and man.
  20. He is God, begotten before all worlds from the being of the Father, and he is man, born in the world from the being of his mother — existing fully as God, and fully as man with a rational soul and a human body; equal to the Father in divinity, subordinate to the Father in humanity.
  21. Although he is God and man, he is not divided, but is one Christ.
  22. He is united because God has taken humanity into himself; he does not transform deity into humanity.
  23. He is completely one in the unity of his person, without confusing his natures.
  24. For as the rational soul and body are one person, so the one Christ is God and man.
  25. He suffered death for our salvation. He descended into hell and rose again from the dead.
  26. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
  27. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
  28. At his coming all people shall rise bodily to give an account of their own deeds.
  29. Those who have done good will enter eternal life, those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.
  30. This is the catholic faith.
  31. One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
ATHANASIAN CREED
  1. Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith.
  2. Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally.
  3. Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being.

What about Jesus Christ's God?

  1. For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another.
  2. But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty.
  3. What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit.
  4. Uncreated is the Father; uncreated is the Son; uncreated is the Spirit.

Was that an uncreated corpse of flesh on the cross?

Or, was nobody dead at all?


  1. The Father is infinite; the Son is infinite; the Holy Spirit is infinite.
  2. Eternal is the Father; eternal is the Son; eternal is the Spirit: And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal; as there are not three uncreated and unlimited beings, but one who is uncreated and unlimited.
  3. Almighty is the Father; almighty is the Son; almighty is the Spirit: And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty.

Why then was it necessary for Almighty God's parents to protect him from a human King?

  1. Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God.

Shall we take that to mean that not a single one of the three without the other two is by himself a God of anyone? That won't work will it?

  1. Thus the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord: And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord.

What about the God of the Lord?

  1. As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords.

How about five different versions of God?

  1. The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten; the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father; the Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son.
  2. Thus there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three spirits.

If there is only one Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father nor the Son, how is it that the Father and the Son dwell in believers?

  1. And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other; but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons.

So Jesus Christ's God is not greater than His servant Jesus, right?

  1. Whoever wants to be saved should think thus about the Trinity.

Why would someone want to think about a God invented by men and never mentioned in the entire Bible?

  1. It is necessary for eternal salvation that one also faithfully believe that our Lord Jesus Christ became flesh.
  2. For this is the true faith that we believe and confess: That our Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son, is both God and man.
  3. He is God, begotten before all worlds from the being of the Father, and he is man, born in the world from the being of his mother — existing fully as God, and fully as man with a rational soul and a human body; equal to the Father in divinity, subordinate to the Father in humanity.

If monogenes does not mean "only begotten", as Trinitarians claim, where does this "begotten before all ages" notion come from?


  1. Although he is God and man, he is not divided, but is one Christ.

So then we can be sure you won't ever ever divide him and claim things like, "No that wasn't Jesus the divine being saying that. It was Jesus the human being."

RIGHT?


  1. He is united because God has taken humanity into himself; he does not transform deity into humanity.

Since Scripture says the Father made Jesus "Lord," may we then conclude God transformed humanity into deity?

  1. He is completely one in the unity of his person, without confusing his natures.

So then that was God praying to God who said, "Not my will but yours."

  1. For as the rational soul and body are one person, so the one Christ is God and man.
  2. He suffered death for our salvation. He descended into hell and rose again from the dead.
  3. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
  4. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
  5. At his coming all people shall rise bodily to give an account of their own deeds.
  6. Those who have done good will enter eternal life, those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.

No "justification by faith alone" eh?

  1. This is the catholic faith.
  2. One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully.

Scripture says otherwise. Why is that?
 

John t

Active member
John t said:

The earliest attempt of codification of the NT is the work of Marcion c.140. It is also called the Marturian Canon

These are not the same thing. And why didn't either of these get it right and have a list of your 66 books? Do tell.


One of the key data points in any discussion of canon is something called the Muratorian fragment (also known as the Muratorian canon). This fragment, named after its discoverer Ludovico Antonio Muratori, contains our earliest list of the books in the New Testament. While the fragment itself dates from the 7th or 8th century, the list it contains was originally written in Greek and dates back to the end of the second century (c.180).​

From wikipedia;

Marcion's canon, possibly the first Christian canon ever compiled, consisted of eleven books: a gospel, which was a shorter version of the Gospel of Luke, and ten Pauline epistles.[2][3][6] Marcion's canon rejected the entire Old Testament, along with all other epistles and gospels of what would become the 27-book New Testament canon, which during his life had yet to be compiled.[2][3][7][8] Pauline epistles enjoy a prominent position in the Marcionite canon, since Paul was considered by Marcion to be Christ's only true apostle.[2][3][9]​
Marcionism was denounced by its opponents as heresy and written against by the early Church Fathers – notably by Tertullian in his five-book treatise, Adversus Marcionem (Against Marcion), in about 208.[2][3] Marcion's writings are lost, though they were widely read and numerous manuscripts must have existed.[2][3] Even so, many scholars claim it is possible to reconstruct and deduce a large part of ancient Marcionism through what later critics, especially Tertullian, said concerning Marcion.[2][3][10]​
If there was a core canon from an early time period, then there are two significant implications we can draw from this. First, this means that most of the debates and disagreements about canonical books in early Christianity only concerned a handful of books. Books like 3 John, James, 2 Peter and so on. Early Christianity was not a wide open literary free for all, where there was no agreement on much of anything. Instead there was an agreed-upon core that no one really disputed.​
Second, if there was a core collection of New Testament books, then the theological trajectory of early Christianity had already been determined prior to the debates about the peripheral books being resolved. So, regardless of the outcome of discussion over books like 2 Peter or James, Christianity’s core doctrines of the person of Christ, the work of Christ, the means of salvation, etc., were already in place and already established. The acceptance or rejection of books like 2 Peter would not change that fact.​
Thus, the Muratorian fragment stands as a reminder of two important facts. First, Christians did disagree over books from time to time. That was an inevitability, particularly in the early stages. But this list also reminds us of a second (and more fundamental) fact, namely that there was widespread agreement over the core from a very early time.



Marcion is often credited as being first to establish an explicit canon. Marcion's canon consisted of the Gospel, or the Gospel of the Lord, and ten epistles of Paul (not including the pastorals). Marcion's Gospel was apparently a truncated version of Luke with extraneous content underpinning Marcion's theology.
F. F. Bruce suggests,​
"the chief importance of Marcion in the second century lies in the reaction which he provoked among the leaders of the Apostolic Churches. Just as Marcion’s canon stimulated the more precise defining of the NT canon by the Catholic Church, not to supersede but to supplement the canon of the OT, so, more generally, Marcion’s teaching led the Catholic Church to define its faith more carefully, in terms calculated to exclude a Marcionite interpretation."^ [1]^ Marcion receives derogatory references from contemporary apologist Justin Martyr and heresiologist Irenaeus of Lyons. We can reconstruct Marcion's writings through the references in Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem and Epiphanius' Panarion.^[2]^​
Thus, your assertion that the Marcian Canon and the Maritorian Canon are different cannot be established by looking at facts. I made my case supplying several sources. You have supplied ZERO resources to support your claim. The only thing you supplied was your uninformed nay-saying opinion. FYI facts trump opinions every day​
 
Last edited:

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
One of the key data points in any discussion of canon is something called the Muratorian fragment (also known as the Muratorian canon). This fragment, named after its discoverer Ludovico Antonio Muratori, contains our earliest list of the books in the New Testament.​

It doesn't contain the same list of books as you have in your New Testament. I'm afraid your perspective on the matter here is quite delusional.

While the fragment itself dates from the 7th or 8th century, the list it contains was originally written in Greek and dates back to the end of the second century (c.180).​

From wikipedia;

Marcion's canon, possibly the first Christian canon ever compiled, consisted of eleven books: a gospel, which was a shorter version of the Gospel of Luke, and ten Pauline epistles.[2][3][6] Marcion's canon rejected the entire Old Testament, along with all other epistles and gospels of what would become the 27-book New Testament canon, which during his life had yet to be compiled.[2][3][7][8] Pauline epistles enjoy a prominent position in the Marcionite canon, since Paul was considered by Marcion to be Christ's only true apostle.[2][3][9]​
Marcionism was denounced by its opponents as heresy and written against by the early Church Fathers – notably by Tertullian in his five-book treatise, Adversus Marcionem (Against Marcion), in about 208.[2][3] Marcion's writings are lost, though they were widely read and numerous manuscripts must have existed.[2][3] Even so, many scholars claim it is possible to reconstruct and deduce a large part of ancient Marcionism through what later critics, especially Tertullian, said concerning Marcion.[2][3][10]​
If there was a core canon from an early time period, then there are two significant implications we can draw from this. First, this means that most of the debates and disagreements about canonical books in early Christianity only concerned a handful of books. Books like 3 John, James, 2 Peter and so on. Early Christianity was not a wide open literary free for all, where there was no agreement on much of anything. Instead there was an agreed-upon core that no one really disputed.​

Funny that Marcion did not include Matthew, Mark, and John in his "core" books. Your misrepresentations of the actual historical facts is somewhat disturbing.

Second, if there was a core collection of New Testament books, then the theological trajectory of early Christianity had already been determined prior to the debates about the peripheral books being resolved. So, regardless of the outcome of discussion over books like 2 Peter or James, Christianity’s core doctrines of the person of Christ, the work of Christ, the means of salvation, etc., were already in place and already established. The acceptance or rejection of books like 2 Peter would not change that fact.​
Thus, the Muratorian fragment stands as a reminder of two important facts. First, Christians did disagree over books from time to time. That was an inevitability, particularly in the early stages. But this list also reminds us of a second (and more fundamental) fact, namely that there was widespread agreement over the core from a very early time.



Marcion is often credited as being first to establish an explicit canon. Marcion's canon consisted of the Gospel, or the Gospel of the Lord, and ten epistles of Paul (not including the pastorals). Marcion's Gospel was apparently a truncated version of Luke with extraneous content underpinning Marcion's theology.
F. F. Bruce suggests,​
"the chief importance of Marcion in the second century lies in the reaction which he provoked among the leaders of the Apostolic Churches. Just as Marcion’s canon stimulated the more precise defining of the NT canon by the Catholic Church, not to supersede but to supplement the canon of the OT, so, more generally, Marcion’s teaching led the Catholic Church to define its faith more carefully, in terms calculated to exclude a Marcionite interpretation."^ [1]^ Marcion receives derogatory references from contemporary apologist Justin Martyr and heresiologist Irenaeus of Lyons. We can reconstruct Marcion's writings through the references in Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem and Epiphanius' Panarion.^[2]^​
Thus, your assertion that the Marcian Canon and the Maritorian Canon are different cannot be established by looking at facts.

It is hard to believe you even said that. Each contains a different list of books. But that's not different eh?

I made my case supplying several sources. You have supplied ZERO resources to support your claim. The only thing you supplied was your uninformed nay-saying opinion. FYI facts trump opinions every day​

It's not looking like a rational discussion is possible here.
 

TrevorL

Active member
Greetings again John t,
The Athanasian Creed is named for Athanasius, a fourth-century bishop and prominent defender of Trinitarianism. The creed, which has Latin origins, declares key beliefs about the Trinity, specifically, the equal nature of the three persons. It is one of three creeds accepted by the Reformed Church in America.

No, I am not a member of that church, but since this is the second time (I think) that you brought it up, let's discuss it. I will post it below. Please be so kind as to tell us which tenets are unacceptable because they do not conform to Scripture
I guessed earlier that when you said concerning Christadelphians: "Therefore they believe that salvation is both conditional and hyper Arminian." that is some way you supported Calvinism. I am not sure if what you represent is the Presbyterian Church in America, or if the "Reformed Church in America" is an offshoot of the Presbyterian Church. Now I have not studied the history of Calvin and Calvinism, or the Presbyterian Church, or (hyper) predestination, but I do remember that a Unitarian was persecuted and died in Geneva, or nearby while Calvin was predominant.
Please note that the word "catholic" begins with a lower case c every time it is written. Thus it means "universal" and not Roman Catholic
ATHANASIAN CREED
  1. Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith.
  2. Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally.
  3. Now this is the catholic faith: ...........................(Items 4-29)
  4. (Item 30) This is the catholic faith.
  5. (Item 31) One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully.
Now "Our Lord's God" is discussing some of the elements of the Creed, but what I am interested in is: When do you believe that the Church became corrupt? Do you fully endorse Constantine and the established Church of his time? When the creed was arrived at, did those who composed the Creed, named in honour Athanasius, actually believe that the then "catholic faith" was represented by the most prominent church of the time, the Catholic Church? In other words, when does Calvinism or your Reformed Church branch out from the RCC and their "faith"?

Getting back to another theme in your thread, our meeting has a Statement of Faith and the first item is an endorsement of the inspiration of the Scriptures. It then has 30 items of "Truth to be Received", and finally 36 items of "Doctrines to be Rejected". Each meeting is independent but most in Australia have much the same Statement of Faith, and this is also true world wide. As such there is an easy flow of people within our united fellowship. For example, even though we do not have an open fellowship, we easily welcomed on Sunday a couple from 100 miles away, another couple from 600 miles away, and another couple from a neighbouring meeting.

One passage that comes to mind is the preaching to the Samaritans by Philip:
Acts 8:5–6,12 (KJV): 5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. 6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. 12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
I suggest that our statement of faith is based upon this Gospel, and the two major elements "the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ". I doubt that the Reformed Church of America share our understanding of the Kingdom of God, nor our understanding of the Name of Jesus Christ. Also I am not sure that the RCA accept baptism of believers, as I have the impression that they practice infant sprinkling.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

John t

Active member
When do you believe that the Church became corrupt?
That is quite the loaded question! It is on the level of this loaded question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" and I will not answer it except to say that it is a logical fallacy.
Our meeting has a Statement of Faith and the first item is an endorsement of the inspiration of the Scriptures. It then has 30 items of "Truth to be Received", and finally 36 items of "Doctrines to be Rejected". Each meeting is independent but most in Australia have much the same Statement of Faith, and this is also true world wide.
Can you give me a URL for that? That would be a quick path from this briar patch
I doubt that the Reformed Church of America share our understanding of the Kingdom of God, nor our understanding of the Name of Jesus Christ.
Discussing the RCA church is not for this forum because this is the "Christadelphian forum" Clearly, I stated that I am mot a member of that church. The usage of their website is merely a gateway to discuss the Athanasian Creed

The word Christian today is applied to people who believe ideas that do not represent the original Gospel. For example some "Christians" accept and promulgate the Athanasian Creed.

it is you who brought up that Creed (See above) at least two times previously, so let's deal with that before we address that passage you cited in Acts 8.

Since you previously expressed disagreement with it, I would appreciate your specific reply about the tenets you believe are wrong.
I am not sure if what you represent is the Presbyterian Church in America, or if the "Reformed Church in America" is an offshoot of the Presbyterian Church. Now I have not studied the history of Calvin and Calvinism, or the Presbyterian Church, or (hyper) predestination, but I do remember that a Unitarian was persecuted and died in Geneva, or nearby while Calvin was predominant.

I will not be answering that sort of derail because it is not germane to the discussion of the beliefs of Christadelphianism, which is the purpose of this section of CARM.
 

TrevorL

Active member
Greetings again John t,
That is quite the loaded question! It is on the level of this loaded question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" and I will not answer it except to say that it is a logical fallacy.
You may find this difficult, but Christadelphians do not fully endorse Constantine and the various developments of the Church in his own time and later. Part of the decisions in his era, as I understand it at least, the Nicean Creed was formulated and this was in favour of Athanasius and against Arius. The Athanasian Creed was formulated later and is named after Athanasius, but is a further development of thought. My general assessment is that possibly for some considerable time that there were many of the churches that still supported Arius and his views. Also there were over the years many other factions, and some of these the Catholic Church persecuted. So to me, the beginning and end of the Athanasian Creed when it says "the catholic faith" is very relevant in this historical context and we consider that "the catholic faith" is corrupt, both now and then.
it is you who brought up that Creed (See above) at least two times previously, so let's deal with that
No, you introduced the Athanasian Creed in Post #14 (my underlining below and emphasis) and I was very surprised that you consider that this is an important as part of your belief and those that do not accept the Athanasian Creed should be labeled a "cult".
For example, y'all reject
  • the Hypostatic Union
  • the Trinity
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.
Since you previously expressed disagreement with it, I would appreciate your specific reply about the tenets you believe are wrong.
Having considered the start of the Creed the next thing we encounter is item 3:
Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being.
The Christadelphian view is revealed in our under 8 year old instructor:
Q1: Who made all things? Answer: God.
Q2: What is He called? Answer: The Father.
My belief is that there is One God, Yahweh, God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. If you want an advanced explanation of my understanding of this subject, then please refer to the thread "The Yahweh Name".

Kind regards
Trevor
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
Greetings again John t,

You may find this difficult, but Christadelphians do not fully endorse Constantine and the various developments of the Church in his own time and later. Part of the decisions in his era, as I understand it at least, the Nicean Creed was formulated and this was in favour of Athanasius and against Arius. The Athanasian Creed was formulated later and is named after Athanasius, but is a further development of thought. My general assessment is that possibly for some considerable time that there were many of the churches that still supported Arius and his views.

Jerome testified that the Arians were winning the day 40 years after Nicea. The only reason Athanasianism took over is because Emperor Theodosius decreed it 55 years after Nicea. Those who disobeyed his decree were subject to severe punishment. Hence, the reason for modern Trinitarianism is because a secular emperor demanded it to be so. Those are the facts of history, facts which are much unlike the storyline offered to you by Trinity world.

Also there were over the years many other factions, and some of these the Catholic Church persecuted. So to me, the beginning and end of the Athanasian Creed when it says "the catholic faith" is very relevant in this historical context and we consider that "the catholic faith" is corrupt, both now and then.

No, you introduced the Athanasian Creed in Post #14 (my underlining below and emphasis) and I was very surprised that you consider that this is an important as part of your belief and those that do not accept the Athanasian Creed should be labeled a "cult".


Having considered the start of the Creed the next thing we encounter is item 3:

The Christadelphian view is revealed in our under 8 year old instructor:
Q1: Who made all things? Answer: God.
Q2: What is He called? Answer: The Father.
My belief is that there is One God, Yahweh, God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. If you want an advanced explanation of my understanding of this subject, then please refer to the thread "The Yahweh Name".

Kind regards
Trevor
 

John t

Active member
Now "Our Lord's God" is discussing some of the elements of the Creed,........
No, he is attacking it. There is no such thing as "Our Lord's God" except in his imagination. If he were discussing these,

  1. For as the rational soul and body are one person, so the one Christ is God and man.
  2. He suffered death for our salvation. He descended into hell and rose again from the dead.
  3. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
  4. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
  5. At his coming all people shall rise bodily to give an account of their own deeds.
  6. Those who have done good will enter eternal life, those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.
.... there would be no inane comment such as this:
No "justification by faith alone" eh?

That term is not mentioned in those statements. Therefore, he is making stuff up in order to bicker.

Then he is demanding conformity to the present position on Bible canon with this comment:
Oh is that so? So whose canon do you serve and on what evidence?

There is no relevance between the historical search for books that fit the standard for inclusion as canon and what we now consider the 66 books of canon.

His posts are obviously not interested in discussion, and the assumptions of the question have no truth in them. Canon was fixed before 325, somewhere around 220. Marcion was rightfully called a heretic for several reasons, but we remember his work as the genesis of defining canon. Others attempted to do that, and for that reason the defining of canon was somewhat "evolutionary"

So, Trevor, I encourage you to lay out your objections to those 5 statements from the Bible, and in context, if possible
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
No, he is attacking it. There is no such thing as "Our Lord's God" except in his imagination. If he were discussing these,

edit personal comments

"that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory..." Ephesians 1:7

so that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Romans 15:6

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ 2 Corinthians 1:3

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Ephesians 1:3

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Peter 1:3

That's what happens when you nullify the word of God for the sake of your traditions.

  1. For as the rational soul and body are one person, so the one Christ is God and man.
  2. He suffered death for our salvation. He descended into hell and rose again from the dead.
  3. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
  4. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
  5. At his coming all people shall rise bodily to give an account of their own deeds.
  6. Those who have done good will enter eternal life, those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.

Do you believe that you will be judged by works?

.... there would be no inane comment such as this:


That term is not mentioned in those statements. Therefore, he is making stuff up in order to bicker.

Then he is demanding conformity to the present position on Bible canon with this comment:


There is no relevance between the historical search for books that fit the standard for inclusion as canon

Whose standard? And where did you find this "standard"?

and what we now consider the 66 books of canon.

Who is "we"? Those who agree with this particular canon?

His posts are obviously not interested in discussion, and the assumptions of the question have no truth in them. Canon was fixed before 325, somewhere around 220.

Really? On what basis did you make this claim?

Marcion was rightfully called a heretic for several reasons, but we remember his work as the genesis of defining canon.

Why do you do this?

Others attempted to do that, and for that reason the defining of canon was somewhat "evolutionary"

So...... Christians had no canon prior to 220?

So, Trevor, I encourage you to lay out your objections to those 5 statements from the Bible, and in context, if possible
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TrevorL

Active member
Greetings again John t,
So, Trevor, I encourage you to lay out your objections to those 5 statements from the Bible, and in context, if possible
I appreciate your response but not willing to get involved with what "Our Lord's God" has stated or in the answers that you have given him. I notice that you have not fully responded to my comments on Items 1-3:
ATHANASIAN CREED
  1. Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith.
  2. Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally.
  3. Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being.
I also made a simple comparison between Item 3 and what we believe as seen by how we instruct our young to believe that there is One God, the Father. I could also quote what we teach our intermediate children 8-12 y.o. and senior 14-17 y.o. and then what we teach our baptism applicants. These all give Scripture references. Also I suggest that these three Items reveal the shaky base of "the catholic faith" and the shaky basis of the Trinitarian concept. Perhaps you may not have examined the history of the development of ideas that eventually led to the concept of the Trinity. I could post a few summaries on this if you would be interested in examining these. One is a summary from the slides from a talk from one of my brethren listing the various teachings of some of the early "Church fathers". The other is my summary by simply quoting some interesting statements, from a book by a French History Professor on the subject of the development of the subject of the Trinity. He highlights the changes that happened especially with the introduction of ideas from Greek philosophy.

But you ask for me to consider 5 other statements from the Athanasian Creed. Initially I will make a comment on only one of these:
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
This appears to be partly based upon Psalm 110:1. There is perhaps no other verse in the Bible that clearly distinguishes between the One God, Yahweh, God the Father and with David's Lord, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. This passage is extensively quoted and expounded in the NT. None of these passages in any way support the concept of the Trinity. Perhaps we could discuss some of these NT applications of Psalm 110:1 and one suggestion is to start with Acts 2. The Trinity is NOT taught in Acts 2.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
Top