70 replies to this topic

[Simon-Ben-Zion]

One day I was looking for some early Christadelphian books and I found these two and I was wondering what others think of them

Attached Files

•  The_Changing_Literature_of_the_Christadelphian_Community.pdf   1.26MB   37 downloads
•  WHAT_CHRISTADELPHIANS_ORIGINALLY_BELIEVED.rtf   320.65K   44 downloads

[Russell]

These documents have been produced for purposes of pushing particular viewpoints within Christadelphian groups that do not reflect majority Christadelphian views. Nor do they reflect sound Bible teaching. Whether or not views have been changed since earlier positions is of historical interest, but is not valuable in determining the truth of the teaching. We Christadelphians think of what we believe as "truth". Whether earlier Christadelphians were in error on some points is much less relevant than what is true.

Having said that however, it is surprising how much of the original important Christadelphian works are still meaningful in the 21st century. The very first Christadelphian work "Elpis Israel" written in 1848 is not without errors, but can be read today, and many contemporary Christadelphians have actually read it.

"Bible Basics" by Duncan Heaster was a particularly bad example. This has been a very useful book. However it reflects the transistion in views of the author. He started in the minority narrow Dawn Christadelphian fellowship. After moving to the majority (as in ~90% of Christadelphians) Central fellowship, his changing views were reflected in editional changes. When he was no longer welcomed in mainstream Central fellowship, not because of his doctrinal position, but for other reasons, he has moved towards different viewpoints; and these further changes have been reflected in the latest edition.

[Simon-Ben-Zion]

They show that the majority Christadelphian views have changed over the years
What was once the truth is now seen as error

In Elpis Israel Dr Thomas says there are two meanings to sin but this has been changed to breaking the law:

The word sin is used in two principal acceptations in the scripture. It signifies in the first place, "the transgression of the law"; and in the next, it represents that physical principle of the animal nature, which is the cause of all its diseases, death, and resolution into dust. It is that in the flesh "which has the power of death" and it is called sin, because the development, or fixation, of this evil in the flesh, was the result of transgression. Inasmuch as this evil principle pervades every part of the flesh, the animal nature is styled "sinful flesh," that is, "flesh full of sin"; so that sin, in the sacred style, came to stand for the substance called man. In human flesh "dwells no good thing" (Rom. 7:17,18); and all the evil a man does is the result of this principle dwelling in him.
http://www.christade...oks/elpis04.htm

Elpis Israel Chapter 3

[Richie]

Simon-Ben-Zion, on Jan 15 2010, 01:03 PM, said:

They show that the majority Christadelphian views have changed over the years
What was once the truth is now seen as error

In Elpis Israel Dr Thomas says there are two meanings to sin but this has been changed to breaking the law:

The word sin is used in two principal acceptations in the scripture. It signifies in the first place, "the transgression of the law"; and in the next, it represents that physical principle of the animal nature, which is the cause of all its diseases, death, and resolution into dust. It is that in the flesh "which has the power of death" and it is called sin, because the development, or fixation, of this evil in the flesh, was the result of transgression. Inasmuch as this evil principle pervades every part of the flesh, the animal nature is styled "sinful flesh," that is, "flesh full of sin"; so that sin, in the sacred style, came to stand for the substance called man. In human flesh "dwells no good thing" (Rom. 7:17,18); and all the evil a man does is the result of this principle dwelling in him.
http://www.christade...oks/elpis04.htm

Elpis Israel Chapter 3

You will be hard pressed to find a normal Christadelphian who disagrees with what John Thomas wrote there. However you will find different interpretations of what he meant! One extreme (which I believe the author of the documents ascribes to) is that there is something called sin-in-the-flesh, as if sin itself is a physical thing that needs atoning for. On the other hand more centrally-thinking Christadelphians agree that JT was talking about the metonymical use of the term 'sin' to describe that which results in transgression, i.e. obedience to the natural desires of the flesh. Later Christadelphian writers like Robert Roberts and John Carter cleared up the point.

[Simon-Ben-Zion]

Richie, on Jan 15 2010, 06:09 PM, said:

Simon-Ben-Zion, on Jan 15 2010, 01:03 PM, said:

They show that the majority Christadelphian views have changed over the years
What was once the truth is now seen as error

In Elpis Israel Dr Thomas says there are two meanings to sin but this has been changed to breaking the law:

The word sin is used in two principal acceptations in the scripture. It signifies in the first place, "the transgression of the law"; and in the next, it represents that physical principle of the animal nature, which is the cause of all its diseases, death, and resolution into dust. It is that in the flesh "which has the power of death" and it is called sin, because the development, or fixation, of this evil in the flesh, was the result of transgression. Inasmuch as this evil principle pervades every part of the flesh, the animal nature is styled "sinful flesh," that is, "flesh full of sin"; so that sin, in the sacred style, came to stand for the substance called man. In human flesh "dwells no good thing" (Rom. 7:17,18); and all the evil a man does is the result of this principle dwelling in him.
http://www.christade...oks/elpis04.htm

Elpis Israel Chapter 3

You will be hard pressed to find a normal Christadelphian who disagrees with what John Thomas wrote there. However you will find different interpretations of what he meant! One extreme (which I believe the author of the documents ascribes to) is that there is something called sin-in-the-flesh, as if sin itself is a physical thing that needs atoning for. On the other hand more centrally-thinking Christadelphians agree that JT was talking about the metonymical use of the term 'sin' to describe that which results in transgression, i.e. obedience to the natural desires of the flesh. Later Christadelphian writers like Robert Roberts and John Carter cleared up the point.

Why what did Robert Roberts say?
I've only read Christendom Astray

Edited by Simon-Ben-Zion, 15 January 2010 - 07:37 PM.

[Richie]

Well he wrote a lot. I am sure someone somewhere has some quotes from his writings.

[Guido]

Simon-Ben-Zion, on Jan 15 2010, 01:13 PM, said:

Why what did Robert Roberts say?
I've only read Christendom Astray

The Christadelphian, on Vol. 11, Page 93, said:

“What do you mean by ‘sin in the flesh,’ which some speak of as a fixed principle?”—(C.F.)

ANSWER.—Job, speaking of “man that is born of woman,” says, “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?” and David, by the Spirit, says, in Psalm 51:5: “Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Furthermore, the annual atonement under the law (Lev. 16.) was appointed even “for the holy place,” because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, besides their “transgressions in all their sins.”—(verse 16.) “Sin in the flesh,” which is Paul’s phrase, refers to the same thing. It is what Paul also calls “Sin that dwelleth in me” (Rom. 7:17), adding, “I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing.” Now, what is this element called “uncleanness,” “sin,” “iniquity,” &c.?

The difficulty experienced by some in the solution of this question, arises from a disregard of the secondary use of terms. Knowing that sin is the act of transgression, they read “act of transgression” every time they see the term sin, ignoring the fact that there is a metonymy in the use of all words which apply even to sin.

Suppose a similar treatment of the word death. Primarily, death means the state to which a living man is reduced when his life ceases. Now we read of one of the sons of the prophets saying, “There is death in the pot.” Does this mean there was a corpse in the pot? No, but that which makes a corpse of any living man. “Death” literally meant “that which would lead to death.” Again, “death hath passed upon all men,” means the condition that leads to death. So, “Let the dead bury their dead,” means, “Let those who are destined to be numbered with the dead, bury those who are actually dead.” “Passed from death unto life,” means, “Passed from that relation that ends in death, to that which leads to life.”

A disregard of metonymy and ellipsis in such statements, has led to most of the errors of the apostacy; and is leading some back to them who had escaped.

Edited by Guido, 15 January 2010 - 08:10 PM.

[Richie]

Richie, on Jan 15 2010, 02:45 PM, said:

Well he wrote a lot. I am sure someone somewhere has some quotes from his writings.

Like Guido for example (can always count on him!)

[Simon-Ben-Zion]

Thanks for that Guido

[Huldah]

Simon-Ben-Zion, on Jan 16 2010, 03:37 AM, said:

One day I was looking for some early Christadelphian books and I found these two and I was wondering what others think of them

Eye openers. How/where did you find them?

[Evangelion]

Crikey, someone put a lot of effort into these. It's a shame they're both completely irrelevant. Interesting from a historical perspective, but that's all. There's a fair bit of misrepresentation in them as well. Both documents are specifically designed to discredit the Amended community by accusing us of heresy.

Oh wait - Stephen Genusa. There ya go.

[Jeremy]

I haven't read through all this yet, but it strikes me as rather embarrassing that Stephen Genusa has to resort to Duncan Heaster to try and his establish his point. What strange bedfellows!

[Simon-Ben-Zion]

Huldah, on Jan 16 2010, 01:12 AM, said:

Simon-Ben-Zion, on Jan 16 2010, 03:37 AM, said:

One day I was looking for some early Christadelphian books and I found these two and I was wondering what others think of them

Eye openers. How/where did you find them?

I just typed in to Google early Christadelphian writings

[Simon-Ben-Zion]

Evangelion, on Jan 16 2010, 01:27 AM, said:

Crikey, someone put a lot of effort into these. It's a shame they're both completely irrelevant. Interesting from a historical perspective, but that's all. There's a fair bit of misrepresentation in them as well. Both documents are specifically designed to discredit the Amended community by accusing us of heresy.

Oh wait - Stephen Genusa. There ya go.

Matt Drywood told me that

"Yes, I know Stephen very well. Stephen is one of the best minds on understanding the differences on doctrine between UA and U having come from a UA background. He is now Central."

[Evangelion]

He is? Since when?

[Richie]

Since as long as I can remember. I didn't actually know he was originally Unamended.

[Evangelion]

So why all the anti-Amended, pro-Unamended stuff on his website?

[Guido]

Evangelion, on Jan 16 2010, 05:43 PM, said:

So why all the anti-Amended, pro-Unamended stuff on his website?

There's no pro-Unamended stuff on his website. It's all anti-Unamended.

[Richie]

I thought it was all pro-Logos on the atonement stuff anti-normal Central stuff?

[Evangelion]

Guido, on Jan 17 2010, 09:15 AM, said:

Evangelion, on Jan 16 2010, 05:43 PM, said:

So why all the anti-Amended, pro-Unamended stuff on his website?

There's no pro-Unamended stuff on his website. It's all anti-Unamended.

OK, I stand corrected; that's certainly true of the .pdf file. But what about this one? Where did it come from?

[indent]
It is reasonable to ask why there is a need for a work such as is before you. Of what benefit to our walk in the Truth is a review of early pioneer beliefs when the scriptures are surely our only safe and reliable guide? This project is undertaken with urgency at a time when the Unamended household is again at a crossroads. It is undertaken to strengthen brethren and ecclesias faced with difficult decisions impacting the beliefs our community has held so tenaciously these past 150 years. It is undertaken to defend and affirm our understanding and confidence in those things we profess.
[/indent]

Richie, on Jan 17 2010, 09:16 AM, said:

I thought it was all pro-Logos on the atonement stuff anti-normal Central stuff?

Ah, that makes more sense. Ever since GEM moved towards the "Jesus-needed-atonement-for-his-nature" position he's become less distinguishable from the Unamended. And if Steve Genusa takes the same view, I can understand why he'd be attacking the Amended community despite being Central himself.

[Guido]

Evangelion, on Jan 16 2010, 05:57 PM, said:

OK, I stand corrected; that's certainly true of the .pdf file. But what about this one? Where did it come from?

Not sure who wrote that one, but they're obviously representing the conservative Unamended point of view.

Quote

Ah, that makes more sense. Ever since GEM moved towards the "Jesus-needed-atonement-for-his-nature" position he's become less distinguishable from the Unamended. And if Steve Genusa takes the same view, I can understand why he'd be attacking the Amended community despite being Central himself.

Stephen is anti-GEM as well, although it's hard to tell the difference sometimes--especially when he's attacking "partial atonement".

Edited by Evangelion, 04 June 2010 - 11:24 PM.

[Richie]

Evangelion, on Jan 16 2010, 05:57 PM, said:

Ah, that makes more sense. Ever since GEM moved towards the "Jesus-needed-atonement-for-his-nature" position he's become less distinguishable from the Unamended. And if Steve Genusa takes the same view, I can understand why he'd be attacking the Amended community despite being Central himself.

Precisely.

[Simon-Ben-Zion]

Richie, on Jan 16 2010, 10:46 PM, said:

I thought it was all pro-Logos on the atonement stuff anti-normal Central stuff?

Logos are a part of Centra.
When I stuied with the Old Paths they told me that Centra have chaged some things in christdom astary. So I get all my books from Logos because I know that they have not changed any thing in them.

[Jeremy]

Simon-Ben-Zion, on Jan 17 2010, 07:35 PM, said:

So I get all my books from Logos because I know that they have not changed any thing in them.

You have got to be joking. Who told you this rib-tickler? Logos?

[Evangelion]

SBZ, isn't it a bit rich for a self-confessed "Christadelphian gnostic" to be concerned about whether or not Christadelphian teaching has remained the same?

[Simon-Ben-Zion]

Jeremy, on Jan 17 2010, 08:40 PM, said:

Simon-Ben-Zion, on Jan 17 2010, 07:35 PM, said:

So I get all my books from Logos because I know that they have not changed any thing in them.

You have got to be joking. Who told you this rib-tickler? Logos?

Some one from the Old Paths told me that

[Simon-Ben-Zion]

Evangelion, on Jan 17 2010, 09:20 PM, said:

SBZ, isn't it a bit rich for a self-confessed "Christadelphian gnostic" to be concerned about whether or not Christadelphian teaching has remained the same?

No because for me that is true gnosticism (the works of Dr. Thomas)

Edited by Simon-Ben-Zion, 17 January 2010 - 11:57 PM.

[Huldah]

OK I'm lost here. What's all this about Christadelphian Gnosticism?

[R2D2]

Simon-Ben-Zion, on Jan 18 2010, 10:54 AM, said:

Jeremy, on Jan 17 2010, 08:40 PM, said:

Simon-Ben-Zion, on Jan 17 2010, 07:35 PM, said:

So I get all my books from Logos because I know that they have not changed any thing in them.

You have got to be joking. Who told you this rib-tickler? Logos?

Some one from the Old Paths told me that

It's probably just one Old Paths member's personal (incorrect) opinion.