Cults No.8 Christadelphians

Well, we come this evening to, as I was saying a moment or so ago, the final study, at least for the time being in this series on the cults. And in one sense it fills me with a greater sense of remorse and sadness this evening to touch upon the group of people and their beliefs whose names are the Christadelphians. I say that for several reasons.

The first one is that in any case I'm always very reluctant to speak against any particular group of people and one respects beliefs even when one disagrees with them. But I say particularly the Christadelphian sect I feel a tinge of great sadness and sorrow this night, inasmuch as this particular sect differs very greatly from the majority of groups that we have touched on. For one instance they are relatively small in number, contrasted say with the thousands and thousands in Christian science, the tens of thousands in Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witness movement.

They again, although they have an origin in the United States of America, it could be argued have of a British antecedent than the other groups as I shall show you. There is a smattering of Christadelphians around the world but they are not in the large numbers of the groups that I have referenced to in previous weeks. Then as far as I can determine, and this is a singularly good factor in respect to our friends, there was in the infancy of this movement no one who made a packet of money out of what was being proclaimed.

Brigham Young of Mormon fame or infamy did make a sizable fortune and our friend Mary, the founder of the Christian Science Organization to whom I was alluding last week, hardly went to her grave a poor woman. But in no sense, as far as I can ascertain, could this slur of monetary concern be attached to the early founders of this particular group, let alone the modern followers of Christadelphianism. And then one has to make this particular observation of our friends the Christadelphians.

They are people of the book, that is to say they read the Old Testament and the New Testament avidly. They are concerned for Bible truth as they understand it. And for these reasons, and one could perhaps put several others, they differ very, very much from the other sects and groups that we have alluded to in this relatively short series.

And for these reasons, as I say, there is more than just a tinge of sadness and remorse that it falls to my lot this evening to make reference to these people. And one wants to make a great distinction right at the beginning to Christadelphianism as a code of doctrinal beliefs and the individual member of the group. One has respect and love for all people who are sincerely seeking after truth.

But one has to make this pronouncement also that sincerity in and of itself is not sufficient to be equivalent to biblical orthodoxy. The Hindu community with which I had some fellowship a year or so ago out in India are obviously very sincere people. So are the advocates of Islam.

So are the Mormon friends who were in my office this morning. But sincerity, as I argue, in itself is not sufficient. It's a quality that we recognize along with the morality and the ethical code of some of the people in these groups, and particularly this one.

But sincerity in and of itself is not equivalent, I say, to biblical orthodoxy. All that by way of just an introduction and setting the way in which I want to deal with this subject this evening. Let me talk for a moment or two about the term Christadelphian, which is rather a complex one to get it off your tongue.

It's not an English term. It's a Greek term, really, coming from two words, Christos and Adelphoi, the latter being the plural from Adelphos, brother, Christos, as you've guessed, meaning Christ. So Christadelphians are brothers of Christ, or so they would claim.

And there are texts which one can allude to in the Word of God, where the Lord Jesus makes reference to his brothers, those who will be following him to preach the gospel. Doubtless, the word Christadelphian was coined by the founder of the group and is maintained by the followers of Christadelphianism today to distinguish themselves from ordinary orthodox Christians. This distinction is obviously necessary, or else the whole movement of Christadelphianism would not exist.

Here are a group of people who believe that they have discovered the real apostolic Christianity, and as such they want to cut themselves off from the rest of Christendom, which they take to be in error. And by Christendom, one is referring to even such as the established churches, the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church and so on and so forth. But even the evangelical community, the evangelical Christians, who too, like the Christadelphians, start off from a basis of the inspiration of Scripture.

Within Christadelphianism itself, there is no party distinction between, say, the laity and the clergy. And with that, many of us would warm to the proposition. It is a movement of the laity which does not recognise these artificial distinctions which established Christianity has superimposed upon the organisation of the churches down the years.

These men and women therefore are brethren of Christ who are endeavouring to follow, as they understand it, apostolic Christianity. Now, I made reference in my opening gambit to the fact that though it is of American origin, one could really argue for distinct British antecedents. I say that because the founder was a young British graduate in medicine who sailed for the New World in 1833.

And unfortunately for him, the vessel on which he was travelling across to the States was threatened by complete disaster. Indeed, there was a shipwreck and it looked as though this man's life would be endangered. So John Thomas prayed to the Lord and his prayer was to this effect that if God would spare him from being drowned, he would devote the rest of his life not to medical practice, but rather to religious pursuit.

And as far as can be ascertained, there is no doubt that this man kept to the vow that he made in the earlier years of his life. When he arrived at the United States, he came under the influence of a man by the name of Alexander Campbell. Campbell, who gave birth to a movement called the Camberlites, or later on the Disciples of God or the Disciples of Christ, was really taking a position from the New Testament akin apparently to some of the strict Baptists.

And as I say, this young man, Dr. Thomas, came under the influence of the Camberlites. But later on, Dr. Thomas was to disagree with what these people were saying. They were asking for a much more definite stand over against worldliness.

They were baptizing their converts, yes, but they were admitting to pre-immersion, to immersion that had already been administered as still being valid when people joined their group. And Thomas was saying, well, this is not so. These people need to be completely re-immersed.

So there was a beginning of a thought within Thomas which was to develop and was to lead to him severing himself from the Camberlites completely. He took out his, or mapped out his own line on a number of theological principles to which I shall be alluding in a little while. He was to return to the United Kingdom on three different occasions.

And when he came back to this country, he found that the particular preaching that he was now inclined towards with a distinctive line over against the Camberlites was finding a response not so much amongst the Camberlite followers in this country, but rather amongst a group known as the Millerites. These people were somewhat disenchanted. They had been taught that the Lord Jesus Christ would return in 1843.

If memory serves me right, Thomas came back to this country in 1846. So these people were going through the same sort of feelings of disenchantment and despair as some Jehovah's Witnesses today have as a result of the failure of prophecy two years ago regarding the coming of the Lord Jesus. So when Dr. Thomas came back to this country and started to preach his own peculiar doctrines, particularly relevant to the Second Coming, he had a very sympathetic hearing from these people who, it seems, became some of his early followers.

The doctor was to write a book, perhaps the most important work in Christadelphianism, at least historically, called Ellipsis Israel. And he was used, or he felt himself to be used by God, not only in the writing of this book, but to influence a man who was one of his first converts, a man by the name of Robert Rowlands, or Robert Roberts, who became prominent in the movement in the very, very early days. By the 1860s, it seems that there were something like 1,000, no more than that Christadelphians in the world, and the large constituency was in the United Kingdom.

In fact, it seems from my own researches into this particular group that today the same obtains. There are more Christadelphians in this country than in the States. In fact, one authority that I was consulting on various numbers put the composition, the strength of the constituency of Christadelphians in the UK at about 20,000 to 25,000, and the suggestion was that there were no more than double that amount throughout the world.

These statistics were drawn up in 1974, so as we're five years on, perhaps the movement is a little larger than that. But those are the numbers that the Christadelphians seem to have worldwide. Their organisation originally, if organisation is an acceptable term to them, was very, very loose.

There really was no hierarchy. I refer in the summary of notes which was handed out to you to the leadership of Dr Thomas, but that leadership was more one of influence than some organisational leadership. This is not Mary Eddie Baker.

This is not Brigham Young. This is a man who has his own understanding of the word of God and believes that his understanding is a return to biblical Christianity, and as a result of that sort of influence, the influence of the preacher, he was to gain his following in this country and in America. As I mentioned, the man who eventually was to take over from him in this country in influence was Robert Roberts.

When Dr Thomas died in 1869, he had already seen, unfortunately for our Christadelphian friends, the beginning of a And one cannot but comment that the history of Christadelphianism from 1870 through to the turn of the century and on indeed into the 1910s and the 1920s is one that is to some extent unhappy inasmuch as there have been quite a lot of feuds and quite a lot of splits. Certain heretical teachings that deviated from orthodox quotes of Christadelphianism, and so this infant movement had to cope with the cut and thrust of debate on the part of certain people who were straying from the party line. I could keep you here for a long time endeavouring to recapture some of those early problems.

The heresy, for instance, of renunciationism. This was a teaching which was a renunciation of the theory that Christ was of Adam's line. This particular teaching was to work havoc in some assemblies, in some halls during the 1860s, 1870s, 1870 in particular.

Then there was the no-will controversy, the thought being that the Lord Jesus Christ did not have a will of his own. And so one could go on tabulating these things within, as far as I can work out, 1870 to 1880 there were at least 10 different heretical notions which strayed away from the orthodox Christadelphianism of Dr Thomas. And it was really during this period that Robert was holding sway, simply because he was the editor of the organisation's magazine.

Again, the word organisation is not a very good one, the movement's magazine, the Christadelphian. It was Robert's task to hold the party line and to try to keep the Christadelphians back to the orthodoxy of Dr Thomas. The 1880s were going to see another controversy known as the Jotun controversy.

At least it was called that. Whether it was referred to as that, or whether that's a caricature of the historians, I'm not sure. But it's a good name in any case, because it was a question that came up amongst the Christadelphian halls as to whether the whole of the Bible was really inspired.

And the man who was largely responsible for this was a sort of liberal Christadelphian. Friends, as I mentioned, the Christadelphians, generally speaking, accept the whole inspiration of Scripture. Well, he was liberalism.

The same sort of thing was affecting German evangelicalism and began to affect British evangelicalism in the 1880s, 1890s, having its own impact upon the Christadelphians. And other splits arose as a result of this. And out in Australia and New Zealand, where the movement was beginning to pick up a bit of steam, and some groups were being formed, there were heresies there.

Some problems as to the deity of the Lord Jesus, as to the purity of his nature. A particular problem known as the clean flesh heresy that was rife in Australia. What was the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ? The charge was made that orthodox Christadelphians were preaching, were teaching, if you like, a dirty Jesus, a person with a sinful nature.

And then later on in the 1920s, 1930s, there were problems because the main hall that had influence in Christadelphianism was the assembly, was the hall in Birmingham. And this hall, it was thought, and its leadership were exercising an influence that was disproportionate to the rest of the movement. And some of the London halls were not very happy about this, so you had more problems.

Well, what are we saying really is this, that Christadelphianism has known the cut and thrust of debate and the strife of heresy within its own ranks, particularly through from the 1860s right down to 1920 or 1930. But on the whole, as a result of men of the influence of Robert Roberts, the early teaching of the founder, Dr. Thomas, has generally speaking held sway. Well, what can we say about the structure and the significance of Christadelphianism? I've made already the remark that Christadelphianism is very much a lay movement, a movement of the laity.

And with that, as I said, many of us here would find a warmth in response. Their meeting places are known as ecclesias. Interestingly, at the beginning of the movement, they used to be called synagogues, because they thought of themselves on becoming Christadelphians, that they were really Israelites in every aspect, save the accident of birth.

And they came together then in their synagogues. Well, the term popularly became ecclesias, which you probably know is the Greek word for church. As I mentioned a little while ago, from authorities that I consulted, the strength of the British movement at the moment is about 25,000, though that could be a high estimate.

But one thing must be said about Christadelphianism in respect to its numbers, not that one tests orthodoxy from numbers alone. And it is that it has not found universal nor international recognition. You say, what's so important about that? Well, prophecy certainly indicates that one day when those who are saved are enjoying the glories of the next world, they can be thought of in terms of an innumerable company, which come from every race, every tongue, every nation.

Now, as some of you here know, it's been my joy to travel in quite a number of countries, perhaps more than most. And though I have looked at the work of the various sects or Christian deviations in the third world countries, it is very, very rare, if at all, that one finds any response to the message of these particular people. And I would think that this is something of an embarrassment in some degree to them.

Not to the extent, of course, of worrying them out of their Christadelphianism into orthodox evangelical Christianity, in as much as they would probably argue that in any case, the elect of God has tended to be a very small company of people. But nonetheless, I would argue it has to be an international group of people. Christadelphians evangelism is not of the emotional sort.

Indeed, the whole movement lacks in emotion. And this, I think they would claim, is one of the strong points of the movement. A little booklet sent to me a couple of days ago by a Christadelphian near London, I read how they deprecated the sort of emotionalism of the Billy Graham meeting with the choir and the singing and the coming down to the front.

Christadelphianism in its evangelism would be a much more refined, if that's the right word, a much more an attempt in a lower key to appeal to the intellect of people in the lectures that are given, particularly on the second advent of Jesus and prophecy, which is one of the major aspects of Christadelphian doctrine. Very often you will find in towns, as we had here in Worthing a year or two ago, our friends the Christadelphians putting on very well-produced exhibitions of the Bible, encouraging people to read the word of God and to come along to their lectures and to listen to what has to be said. Well, they're in brief and obviously one has been trying to compress into a very small space of time a lot of history and a lot of structure and a lot of significance.

But those are the things that need to be born in the back of our minds when we consider the Christadelphian sect. But perhaps more important for us than the history and the structure of any organization, be it these people or the Christian scientists or the Mormons or the Moonies or the children of God and so on, could go on and on and on and on. More important than their history and personalities is their doctrine, because truth stands or falls not in regard to the people who have preached, but rather in regard to what they have said being placed alongside the scriptures, for that is the acid test of biblical orthodoxy.

Now, I did make the point, and it's a very interesting one, that the Christadelphians, when they come to the scriptures, believe them to be the inspired word of God. Of that there is no doubt. Generally speaking, with perhaps just one possible exception, they have never suggested that any other book, like for instance Christian Science with Science and Health, the Founders book and Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, they've never suggested that any other book should be placed alongside of scripture.

I say with one exception, because Roberts in his great estimation of Dr. Thomas' work said this, and I'm quoting from the Christadelphians own paper in 1874, volume 11, and he makes this comment to the charge of holding that the knowledge of the scriptures in the writings of Dr. Thomas has reached a finality, we plead guilty. Now what does that mean? Simply that Dr. Thomas' understanding of scripture is really the most accurate, indeed the absolutely accurate grasp of the teaching of the word of God. But whether every Christadelphian or not would go along with that statement, I wouldn't know, I rather doubt it.

The point that is most important is that they acknowledge the inspiration of scripture and encourage other people to study scripture. Well then what do they have to say in respect to the great evangelical doctrines of the word of God? Well let's take the doctrine of the Godhead. And now the historic faith of evangelicalism is this, that God exists in three persons, yet those three are one.

In other words, the Trinitarian position. This is completely thrown overboard by the Christadelphians. Trinitarianism to them is unacceptable.

To quote one of their early leaders, it is not a mystery but a contradiction, a stultification, and impossibility. In other words, you can't apply logic to the notion of the Trinity, and with that we would concur. You cannot apply logic to the notion of the Trinity, neither can you apply logic to the notion of resurrection or the notion of miracles.

The revelation of God goes beyond human logic, and what one does before the word of God is to bring one's reason down to what the revelation of God's word is saying. And I spent quite a long period of time in this tabernacle going through various Trinitarian statements in the word of God and going into print on those particular statements to demonstrate to you the clarity with which the scriptures accord to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the position of deity, the three in one and the one in three. If I had the opportunity this evening, if I had the time, I would go through at least a summary of those lectures, but it would be impossible to compress them into just two or three minutes.

The problem of Christadelphianism in its understanding of the Godhead is exactly the same problem of the Jews when they were confronted by the early Christians, their Jewish colleagues who turned Christians. It's a problem of the Old Testament making reference to the oneness of God. The Lord our God is one Lord, Deuteronomy chapter six and other verses of scripture.

Failing to understand that within the doctrine of God as spoken in the Old Testament, there are anticipations of plurality even within the Godhead. The very word that is used for God on some occasions in the Old Testament indicates the plurality that there is. The very, the word Elohim, the idea of God saying, let us make man in our own image and so on and so forth.

But as I say, time does not give me opportunity this evening to develop this in full. Now if you go wrong on the doctrine of God, the doctrine of the Trinity, then you're going to go wrong in your doctrine of Jesus Christ and your doctrine of the Holy Spirit. And this you find within Christadelphianism.

Jesus Christ is not understood in terms of historic Christianity's teaching as the second person of the Trinity, the ever-existing one. The Lord Jesus Christ, according to the Jehovah's Witnesses, was God's first creation. There was pre-existence but not divinity inherent within the Lord Jesus.

The Christadelphians are less in their doctrine of Jesus than the JWs, inasmuch as they do not admit to the pre-existence of Jesus. Again, let me quote from one of their writings, one of their more authoritative writings, the Son only came into existence when the Virgin Mary gave birth to Christ, when the Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus. How did Jesus attain to divinity, deity? Well, he did this at his baptism.

Now there were certain heretics in the early church who taught this. Jesus became divine that moment when he was immersed in water by the Baptist and the Holy Spirit descended upon him. This is known as the adoptionist heresy.

As I say, it came up in church history within the first two or three centuries and it's known its ramification since. And one would lovingly, sincerely though, suggest to our Christadelphian friends that it is in this area that they are in error. There are scriptures which speak about the Lord Jesus Christ and his pre-existence.

Micah 5 verse 2, but thou Bethlehem Ephrathah, referring to the birth of Jesus, though thou be little amongst the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall come forth unto me one whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Isaiah chapter 8 makes reference to the titles of the Lord Jesus. His name shall be Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father of His Government, there shall be no end, and so on and so forth.

When Jesus is engaged in dialogue with the Pharisees in his day, he makes reference to Abraham. He speaks as though he knows Abraham. The Pharisees can't understand it.

You're a young man, how can you possibly speak with authority concerning our father Abraham? And Jesus said, let me tell you, before Abraham was, I am. And so one could go on, literally, no exaggeration at all, quoting you example after example, which indicates the pre-existence and the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. But once you adopt what is really a semi-unitarian position on the Godhead, then you are in trouble.

Once you say that God the Father is the sole representative of deity, he is the only one who has deity inherent within him, then you have problems all the way through in your Christology. And it is here that we find the Christadelphians steering away from the moorings of the apostolic biblical faith. They, nonetheless, will accord to the Lord Jesus a very high position.

In fact, in one of their writings, Christadelphian Answers, written by a man called Janoway, one of their teachers, he says, we may adore Christ, not because he is God, but because power is given him in heaven and earth, and because he is exalted above all. No one who knows what the scriptures teach concerning Jesus Christ will find fault with the Apostle Thomas' address, addressing the Lord as my Lord and my God. They will adore the Lord Jesus Christ, they will heap worship upon the Savior, but they will fall far short of acknowledging him as being the second person of the ever-blessed Trinity.

Now, in respect to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, again, you would anticipate, from this very premise, that they will not be according to the Holy Spirit personality, rather, and here again you find some common denominator between them and the Jehovah's Witnesses, they will speak of the Spirit in terms of the power of God, the dynamic of God, the energy of God, but that is not sufficient for Scripture. The Word of God, on so many occasions, and again, I would point you to one of our own publications on this, on the doctrine of God, makes reference to the personal nature of the Spirit. He is not an it.

You are not filled with some influence. The Spirit of God is rendered in Scripture as being a person, co-existent with the Father, as the Father sends the Son onto the earth to achieve his purposes, so in turn, having accomplished that, the Lord Jesus Christ sends the Spirit. And if you check some of the references, even two or three which I've penned down for these notes, you will see statements to that effect in the Bible.

But let's come on to the salvation work of the Saviour, in effect, to the Gospel and its refinement in Christadelphianism. I make reference in the notes that I gave you to the fact that if a river is polluted, when you get to its delta, it will still have its pollution. And this, alas, is the case with this particular theology.

Wrong at the source, it will be wrong at the end. Justification by faith is utterly, totally rejected. Salvation is possible, of course, but it's possible through acknowledging the teachings of Christadelphianism, which, as I said earlier, is very much addressed to the mind.

Nothing wrong with that, of course. Conversion, conviction comes through the mind, but then I would go on to argue for an emotional confirmation of that intellectual understanding. But the Christadelphian, the one who is a convert, will accept what the Christadelphian has taught, and then he will be baptized.

But that in itself, the acceptance of belief and baptism, will not necessarily guarantee salvation. There must be the accompanying works. So you see, justification by faith just goes to the wind.

The great doctrines of Calvin and Luther, they find no place within the Christadelphian scheme. It's not just a question of what Jesus has done on the cross. And indeed, when Jesus died on the cross, he did not die for your sins, in the sense of paying the penalty for your sins.

Jesus died to exhibit the righteousness of God. The idea of him dying vicariously as an atonement for the sins of the world, that is not accepted within Christadelphianism at all. You will need to follow through the teachings of Christadelphianism.

Having been baptized, you will live a life that is a good life, as our friends are good people. You will live an ethical life, as our friends are ethical people. But the gospel of Jesus Christ, as proclaimed by historic evangelicalism, is defective in the shadow of its teaching in Christadelphianism.

And as a result of that, something else follows quite logically. There is no assurance. There is no assurance at all within Christadelphianism.

That is assurance of salvation. That is impossible, even for the baptized Christadelphian. It does not follow, I quote from the Christadelphian magazine.

I haven't put the year of its publication down here, but I can quite easily relocate that. It does not follow that all Christadelphians will be saved. But it is a truth that none but Christadelphians can be.

The household of Christ will all rise. But even here, many will be judged unworthy of continuance, unworthy of eternal life. The immortality of the soul, well, as with Jehovah's Witnesses, that goes by the ball in Christadelphianism.

Eternal condemnation, Dr. Thomas taught that that was a wrong understanding of Scripture. And yet the Lord Jesus Christ most surely taught that the soul of man is immortal and eternal, and it continues even after death, whether one has lived righteously or unrighteously, whether one has accepted Christ as Savior or has not. We would refer people to the parable which Jesus told of the rich man and Lazarus.

We would refer people to such statements as in 2 Corinthians 5 and 1 Thessalonians 5, which again indicate the immortality of the soul. And on death, what happens? Well, in the Christadelphian scheme of things, one really passes out of existence, at least one goes into a state of soul sleep. And then at the resurrection, one is raised, if that is one is a Christadelphian, if one has been baptized, if one has kept the ethical code of Christadelphianism, one is raised and involved in the eternal program that God has for his faithful people.

And that eternal program can be suggested into the kingdom. The kingdom plays a great part in Christadelphian thought, the restoration of Israel. Historically, they