From June 25 – July 3, under the general direction of Bro. Frank Abel, some 36 videos were filmed in the Shelburne, ONT ecclesial hall. The camera team came from the Boston ecclesia, the thirty-six brethren came from across the continent and the coordination and hospitality was supplied by the Shelburne Ecclesia. This was a truly inter-ecclesial effort designed to produce home videos presenting various aspects of the Truth to the interested friend. Announcements of their availability have already been sent to ecclesias.
We were given the topic, “An introduction to the Christadelphians” which covered such areas as our history, organization and beliefs. These are matters which, like most Christadelphians, we have often described to acquaintances. Yet, when putting together our comments, we were impressed all over again with our distinctive doctrines.
We really are different!
Wholly inspired Bible the only source
Our attitude toward the Bible is virtually unique. While claiming to be Bible-based, many denominations give far greater weight to pronouncements of their ruling councils than to scripture (e.g. Roman Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses) or they interpret the Bible as guided by extra-Biblical writings (e.g. The Book of Mormon, Science and Health). Even most professedly fundamentalist people interpret scripture in the light of what they feel the Holy Spirit has revealed personally to them. And many conservative appearing groups, who claim to rely exclusively on the Bible, do not share our view that the original manuscripts were free of human distortion on matters of doctrine. They discount the validity of certain statements because they feel the writers own bias has influenced the text.
Our conviction — the Bible is a wholly inspired, inerrant, unique source of knowledge about God and His purpose — is very distinctive.
The devil
As we know, we are not alone in believing man is unconscious in death (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, etc. share this conviction). Where we are virtually alone, however, is in denying the personal devil. Even those groups who understand man is mortal, do not view the human heart as the sole source of sin.
Our understanding of sinful flesh is thus a view which distinguishes us from almost everyone else.
The nature of Christ
A belief in the personal pre-existence of Jesus is nearly universal in Christendom. Understanding that Jesus began his existence when conceived by the power of God coming upon Mary is almost unique to us.
Combining our understanding of the origin of Jesus with our view of human nature, we have a distinctive belief that Jesus Christ truly came in the flesh. He was of our condemned race, and had within him the impulses to sin which are the common lot of mankind.
The representative death of Christ
These distinctive views come into sharpest focus in our belief that, being of our condemned nature, Jesus was redeemed by his own sacrifice.
Others may believe Jesus died for their personal sins and set an example of right conduct, but they do not understand that he put away the law of condemnation, not only for us, but also for himself. They do not believe that Jesus, along with ourselves, was raised from the dead through the everlasting covenant which was ratified by his sacrificial death. His death truly was representative.
Here is a doctrine distinctive of Christadelphians.
Limited after-life
While knowing the foregoing truths were not held by many groups, we were impressed at how completely they distinguish Christadelphians from other communities.
In doing our homework, we came across another issue which we had not previously realized is virtually unique to Christadelphians –the view of a limited exposure to judgment after this life.
Obviously, every group which believes in the immortality of the soul believes that there is some destiny for the soul. With this view, universal judgment upon death is mandatory for everybody. What we did not previously know was that most groups which believe in the unconscious state of the dead also believe in universal judgment. Following are some examples:
The Seventh Day Adventists state, “There will be a judgment of all men”
(Questions on Doctrine, p. 23). They make no attempt to provide a basis of judgment for the ignorant, but they have everyone who ever lived being classified as just or unjust.
The World Wide Church of God (Ambassador College) believes every person who ever lived will have an opportunity to be saved: “The majority of those having died through past centuries died with no knowledge of Christ…They must have their first chance for salvation” (After Death…Then What? by Garner Ted Armstrong). After their chance for salvation, they face a judgment seat. A similar view is held by Jehovah’s Witnesses (see Let God Be True, p. 289).
Christadelphians are virtually unique in believing that the ignorant– that is, a man who does not understand the Truth in this lifetime — will never be raised from the dead.
Not close to others
When we survey our beliefs, we understand why people find a substantial difference between our teachings and those of the denominations around us. We are not somewhere on a scale of communities whose beliefs gradually shift from the Truth to orthodoxy. Our beliefs on fundamental teachings are distinctively different.
Many of us have probably been brought up short in this regard when we try to explain our views in terms of the doctrines of Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example. Having personally done this, we have been dismayed to find the person addressed is forming an entirely wrong opinion. The reason, of course, is that there really is very little similarity in basic doctrines. We stand apart from other denominations and need to explain ourselves solely in terms of the Bible.
An implication to note
There is a pertinent implication to these considerations that we should think about. We are currently running discussion articles on the issue of resurrectional responsibility. This is an issue which, 100 years ago, caused the creation of two fellowships of Christadelphians — Amended and Unamended.
It is a historical fact that both groups have remained distinctively Christadelphian. If either community had compromised our distinctive beliefs, they should have lost their Christadelphian identity.
For example, in 1877, there was a division in Christadelphia because some began to teach that Christ’s nature was different from that of the rest of mankind. They had denied that “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” (I John 4:2). In doing so, they had forsaken a distinctive doctrine of Christadelphians. Those following such an idea were on the road to the apostasy and did not continue as a Christadelphian community.
In 1884, when some argued for the partial inspiration of the scriptures, those who had compromised one of our distinctive beliefs gradually drifted into other denominations. No Christadelphian fellowship survived believing in a partially inspired Bible.
Yet both the Amended and Unamended communities have continued, separate but parallel, for 100 years. Neither has become an orthodox church and people regularly transfer from one fellowship to the other without being re-baptized. We use the same hymn books, read many of the same magazines, respect the same pioneer brethren and generally address one another as “brother” and “sister.”
How can this be when the whole reason there are two communities is because of disagreement over Biblical teaching? Normally if somebody denies a distinctively Christadelphian doctrine, they gradually drift back into orthodox theology. Why hasn’t this happened?
Uniquely Christadelphian differences The answer lies in the areas of disagreement.
Take the matter of resurrectional responsibility. In the resurrection, who will rise from the dead for judgment? The Amended say –all those who know the Truth and have been called upon to obey it. That is a very restricted group, vastly narrower than most denominations would allow for. What do the Unamended say? They narrow the group even further claiming we can only be sure about the baptized being raised for judgment with perhaps some others being included as well. Although we do not agree with narrowing resurrectional responsibility, such a view is not moving toward orthodox theology; it is moving away from it.
When compared to the teachings of others, both Amended and Unamended ideas fall within the distinctively Christadelphian view of limited resurrection.
Other areas of difference between the communities revolve around points of emphasis concerning how Christ benefited from his own death, how Adamic condemnation can appropriately be described and when it can be said we are freed of racial condemnation. Any differences on such matters could hardly lead to orthodoxy. They are disputes within the circle of doctrines instinctively Christadelphian. Furthermore, the statement of faith for both communities extensively covers such matters in identical words.
The conclusion seems evident that these two separated communities are both Christadelphians.
Wisdom is needed
As people who are constantly thinking about Biblical subjects, it is inevitable that various ideas will arise among us. Some of these will be incorrect. Unsound teaching must be guarded against with uncompromising vigilance. Divergences that remain within the circle of distinctively Christadelphian teaching, however, can be treated with more patience. God grant that we may handle such issues with lovingkindness and forbearance.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One